Methods for Docking Small Molecules to Macromolecules: A User’s Perspective. 1. The Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, computationally docking potential protein ligands (e.g., enzyme inhibitors) has become one of the most widely used strategies in computer aided drug design. While these docking methods were developed, some effort focused on their user-friendliness up to a point where they can be used by non-experts with nearly no training, somewhat hiding the underlying theory. However, basic knowledge is still required to avoid pitfalls and misinterpretations of docking experiments. Over the years, we have collected the common mistakes and necessary information for the proper use of docking programs. In this review, we compiled this data for non-experts in the field. In a first section, we present the theory of docking and scoring approaches as well as their limitations, followed by the most recent progress towards the consideration of protein flexibility, water molecules, metal ions, and covalent drugs. In a second section, we describe what we believe are the necessary steps to ensure optimal docking. More specifically, we present the selection of a docking program, available databases of small molecules, macromolecules and biological data, the necessary steps for the preparation of proteins and small molecules, and finally post docking analysis techniques. In the following sections, we compile the sources of biases and describe docking to nucleic acids.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".