Atomistic Models for Free Energy Evaluation of Drug Binding to Membrane Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The binding of various molecules to integral membrane proteins with optimal affinity and specificity is central to normal function of cell. While membrane proteins represent about one third of the whole cell proteome, they are a majority of common drug targets. The quest for the development of computational models capable of accurate evaluation of binding affinities, decomposition of the binding into its principal components and thus mapping molecular mechanisms of binding remains one of the main goals of modern computational biophysics and related drug development. The primary scope of this review will be on the recent extension of computational methods for the study of drug binding to membrane proteins. Several examples of such applications will be provided ranging from secondary transporters to voltage gated channels. In this mini-review, we will provide a short summary on the breadth of different methods for binding affinity evaluation. These methods include molecular docking with docking scoring functions, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations combined with post-processing analysis using Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann (Generalized Born) Surface Area (MM/PB(GB)SA), as well as direct evaluation of free energies from Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) with constraining schemes, and Potential of Mean Force (PMF) computations. We will compare advantages and shortcomings of popular techniques and provide discussion on the integrative strategies for drug development aimed at targeting membrane proteins.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".