Improving the LIE Method for Binding Free Energy Calculations of Protein–Ligand Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we introduced an improved linear interaction energy (LIE) method parameterization for computations of protein–ligand binding free energies. The protocol, coined LIE-D, builds on the linear relationship between the empirical coefficient γ in the standard LIE scheme and the D parameter, introduced in our work. The D-parameter encompasses the balance (difference) between electrostatic (polar) and van der Waals (nonpolar) energies in protein–ligand complexes. Leave-one-out cross-validation showed that LIE-D reproduced accurately the absolute binding free energies for our training set of protein–ligand complexes (<|error|> = 0.92 kcal/mol, SDerror = 0.66 kcal/mol, R(2) = 0.90, QLOO(2) = 0.89, and sPRESS(LOO) = 1.28 kcal/mol). We also demonstrated LIE-D robustness by predicting accurately the binding free energies for three different protein–ligand systems outside the training data set, where the electrostatic and van der Waals interaction energies were calculated with different force fields.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".