Modern drug design: the implication of using artificial neuronal networks and multiple molecular dynamic simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the implementation of molecular modeling approaches developed as a part of the 2016 Grand Challenge 2, the blinded competition of computer aided drug design technologies held by the D3R Drug Design Data Resource ( https://drugdesigndata.org/ ). The challenge was focused on the ligands of the farnesoid X receptor (FXR), a highly flexible nuclear receptor of the cholesterol derivative chenodeoxycholic acid. FXR is considered an important therapeutic target for metabolic, inflammatory, bowel and obesity related diseases (Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 4:523-532, 2015), but in the context of this competition it is also interesting due to the significant ligand-induced conformational changes displayed by the protein. To deal with these conformational changes we employed multiple simulations of molecular dynamics (MD). Our MD-based protocols were top-ranked in estimating the free energy of binding of the ligands and FXR protein. Our approach was ranked second in the prediction of the binding poses where we also combined MD with molecular docking and artificial neural networks. Our approach showed mediocre results for high-throughput scoring of interactions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it