MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148727154 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2010.70

Toward a Robust Search Method for the Protein-Drug Docking Problem

2010· article· en· W2148727154 on OpenAlexaff
Bashir Sadjad, Zsolt Zsoldos

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDocking (animal)AlgorithmMatching (statistics)Mathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the binding mode(s) of a drug molecule to a target receptor is pivotal in structure-based rational drug design. In contrast to most approaches to solve this problem, the idea in this paper is to analyze the search problem from a computational perspective. By building on top of an existing docking tool, new methods are proposed and relevant computational results are proven. These methods and results are applicable for other place-and-join frameworks as well. A fast approximation scheme for the docking of rigid fragments is described that guarantees certain geometric approximation factors. It is also demonstrated that this can be translated into an energy approximation for simple scoring functions. A polynomial time algorithm is developed for the matching phase of the docked rigid fragments. It is demonstrated that the generic matching problem is NP-hard. At the same time, the optimality of the proposed algorithm is proven under certain scoring function conditions. The matching results are also applicable for some of the fragment-based de novo design methods. On the practical side, the proposed method is tested on 829 complexes from the PDB. The results show that the closest predicted pose to the native structure has the average RMS deviation of 1.06 A.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207