Substrate-Specific Screening for Mutational Hotspots Using Biased Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of substrate-specific mutational hotspots for enzyme engineering is a complex and computationally intensive task. This becomes particularly challenging when the available crystal structures have no ligand, bind a distant homologue of the desired substrate, or hold the ligand in a nonproductive conformation. To address that shortcoming, we present a combined molecular dynamics simulation and molecular docking protocol to predict the conformation of catalytically relevant enzyme–ligand complexes even in the absence of a ligand-bound structure. We applied the adaptive biasing force method to predict the ligand-specific path of diffusion of a fatty acid substrate from the bulk media into the active site of cytochrome P450 CYP102A1 (BM3). Starting with a ligand-free crystal structure, we successfully identified all residues known to be involved in palmitic acid binding to BM3. The binding trajectory also revealed a yet unknown binding residue, Q73, which we confirmed experimentally. Building the free-energy landscape illustrates that, similar to human cytochrome P450s, binding is multistep and does not follow simple Michaelis–Menten kinetics. We confirmed the robustness of the method using a structurally distinct substrate, the small aromatic indole. We then applied the predicted BM3:palmitate complex to molecular docking of a library of 29 palmitate analogues. This produced catalytically relevant binding poses for the entire library, while docking directly into ligand-free and ligand-bound crystal structures gave poor results. This fast and simple computational method is broadly applicable for predicting binding hotspots in a substrate-specific manner and has the potential to drastically reduce the experimental screening effort to tailor an enzyme to substrates of interest.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".