A systematic analysis of atomic protein–ligand interactions in the PDB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the protein databank (PDB) recently passed the cap of 123 456 structures, it stands more than ever as an important resource not only to analyze structural features of specific biological systems, but also to study the prevalence of structural patterns observed in a large body of unrelated structures, that may reflect rules governing protein folding or molecular recognition. Here, we compiled a list of 11 016 unique structures of small-molecule ligands bound to proteins - 6444 of which have experimental binding affinity - representing 750 873 protein-ligand atomic interactions, and analyzed the frequency, geometry and impact of each interaction type. We find that hydrophobic interactions are generally enriched in high-efficiency ligands, but polar interactions are over-represented in fragment inhibitors. While most observations extracted from the PDB will be familiar to seasoned medicinal chemists, less expected findings, such as the high number of C-H···O hydrogen bonds or the relatively frequent amide-π stacking between the backbone amide of proteins and aromatic rings of ligands, uncover underused ligand design strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".