Predicting Multiple Ligand Binding Modes Using Self-Consistent Pharmacophore Hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to predict ligand binding modes without the aid of wet-lab experiments may accelerate and reduce the cost of drug discovery research. Despite significant recent progress, virtual screening has not yet eliminated the need for wet-lab experiments. For example, after a lead compound has been identified, the precise binding mode is still typically determined by experimental structural biology. This structural knowledge is then employed to guide lead optimization. We present a step toward improving protein-ligand binding mode prediction for a set of ligands known to interact with a common protein. There is thus an important distinction between this work and traditional virtual screening algorithms. Whereas traditional approaches attempt to identify binding ligands from a large database of available compounds, our approach aims to more accurately predict the binding mode for a set of ligands which are already known to bind the target protein. The approach is based on the hypothesis that each active site contains a set of interaction points which binding ligands tend to exploit. In a more traditional context, these interaction points make up a pharmacophoric map. Our algorithm first performs traditional protein-ligand docking for each known binder. The ranked lists of candidate binding modes are then evaluated to identify a set of poses maximally self-consistent with respect to a pharmacophoric map generated from the same poses. We have extensively demonstrated the application of the algorithm to four protein systems (thrombin, cyclin-dependent kinase 2, dihydrofolate reductase, and HIV-1 protease) and attained predictions with an average RMSD < 2.5 A for all tested systems. This represents a typical improvement of 0.5-1.0 A (up to 25%) RMSD over the naive virtual docking predictions. Our algorithm is independent of the docking method and may significantly improve binding mode prediction of virtual docking experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".