Increasing Chemical Space Coverage by Combining Empirical and Computational Fragment Screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most libraries for fragment-based drug discovery are restricted to 1,000-10,000 compounds, but over 500,000 fragments are commercially available and potentially accessible by virtual screening. Whether this larger set would increase chemotype coverage, and whether a computational screen can pragmatically prioritize them, is debated. To investigate this question, a 1281-fragment library was screened by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) against AmpC β-lactamase, and hits were confirmed by surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Nine hits with novel chemotypes were confirmed biochemically with KI values from 0.2 to low mM. We also computationally docked 290,000 purchasable fragments with chemotypes unrepresented in the empirical library, finding 10 that had KI values from 0.03 to low mM. Though less novel than those discovered by NMR, the docking-derived fragments filled chemotype holes from the empirical library. Crystal structures of nine of the fragments in complex with AmpC β-lactamase revealed new binding sites and explained the relatively high affinity of the docking-derived fragments. The existence of chemotype holes is likely a general feature of fragment libraries, as calculation suggests that to represent the fragment substructures of even known biogenic molecules would demand a library of minimally over 32,000 fragments. Combining computational and empirical fragment screens enables the discovery of unexpected chemotypes, here by the NMR screen, while capturing chemotypes missing from the empirical library and tailored to the target, with little extra cost in resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".