Quantifying Water-Mediated Protein–Ligand Interactions in a Glutamate Receptor: A DFT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly clear that careful treatment of water molecules in ligand-protein interactions is required in many cases if the correct binding pose is to be identified in molecular docking. Water can form complex bridging networks and can play a critical role in dictating the binding mode of ligands. A particularly striking example of this can be found in the ionotropic glutamate receptors. Despite possessing similar chemical moieties, crystal structures of glutamate and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA) in complex with the ligand-binding core of the GluA2 ionotropic glutamate receptor revealed, contrary to all expectation, two distinct modes of binding. The difference appears to be related to the position of water molecules within the binding pocket. However, it is unclear exactly what governs the preference for water molecules to occupy a particular site in any one binding mode. In this work we use density functional theory (DFT) calculations to investigate the interaction energies and polarization effects of the various components of the binding pocket. Our results show (i) the energetics of a key water molecule are more favorable for the site found in the glutamate-bound mode compared to the alternative site observed in the AMPA-bound mode, (ii) polarization effects are important for glutamate but less so for AMPA, (iii) ligand-system interaction energies alone can predict the correct binding mode for glutamate, but for AMPA alternative modes of binding have similar interaction energies, and (iv) the internal energy is a significant factor for AMPA but not for glutamate. We discuss the results within the broader context of rational drug-design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".