Coupled atomic charge selectivity for optimal ligand‐charge distributions at protein binding sites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charge optimization as a tool for both analyzing and enhancing binding electrostatics has become an attractive approach over the past few years. An interesting feature of this method for molecular design is that it provides not only the optimal charge magnitudes, but also the selectivity of a particular atomic center for its optimal charge. The current approach to compute the charge selectivity at a given atomic center of a ligand in a particular binding process is based on the binding-energy cost incurred upon the perturbation of the optimal charge distribution by a unit charge at the given atomic center, while keeping the other atomic partial charges at their optimal values. A limitation of this method is that it does not take into account the possible concerted changes in the other atomic charges that may incur a lower energetic cost than perturbing a single charge. Here, we describe a novel approach for characterizing charge selectivity in a concerted manner, taking into account the coupling between the ligand charge centers in the binding process. We apply this novel charge selectivity measure to the celecoxib molecule, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent binding to cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2), which has been recently shown to also exhibit cross-reactivity toward carbonic anhydrase II (CAII), to which it binds with nanomolar affinity. The uncoupled and coupled charge selectivity profiles over the atomic centers of the celecoxib ligand, binding independently to COX2 and CAII, are analyzed comparatively and rationalized with respect to available experimental data. Very different charge selectivity profiles are obtained for the uncoupled versus coupled selectivity calculations.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it