Predictions of Ligand Selectivity from Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binding selectivity is a requirement for the development of a safe drug, and it is a critical property for chemical probes used in preclinical target validation. Engineering selectivity adds considerable complexity to the rational design of new drugs, as it involves the optimization of multiple binding affinities. Computationally, the prediction of binding selectivity is a challenge, and generally applicable methodologies are still not available to the computational and medicinal chemistry communities. Absolute binding free energy calculations based on alchemical pathways provide a rigorous framework for affinity predictions and could thus offer a general approach to the problem. We evaluated the performance of free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics for the prediction of selectivity by estimating the affinity profile of three bromodomain inhibitors across multiple bromodomain families, and by comparing the results to isothermal titration calorimetry data. Two case studies were considered. In the first one, the affinities of two similar ligands for seven bromodomains were calculated and returned excellent agreement with experiment (mean unsigned error of 0.81 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.75). In this test case, we also show how the preferred binding orientation of a ligand for different proteins can be estimated via free energy calculations. In the second case, the affinities of a broad-spectrum inhibitor for 22 bromodomains were calculated and returned a more modest accuracy (mean unsigned error of 1.76 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.48); however, the reparametrization of a sulfonamide moiety improved the agreement with experiment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".