In Silico Peptide Ligation: Iterative Residue Docking and Linking as a New Approach to Predict Protein-Peptide Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide⁻protein interactions are corner-stones of living functions involved in essential mechanisms, such as cell signaling. Given the difficulty of obtaining direct experimental structural biology data, prediction of those interactions is of crucial interest for the rational development of new drugs, notably to fight diseases, such as cancer or Alzheimer's disease. Because of the high flexibility of natural unconstrained linear peptides, prediction of their binding mode in a protein cavity remains challenging. Several theoretical approaches have been developed in the last decade to address this issue. Nevertheless, improvements are needed, such as the conformation prediction of peptide side-chains, which are dependent on peptide length and flexibility. Here, we present a novel in silico method, Iterative Residue Docking and Linking (IRDL), to efficiently predict peptide⁻protein interactions. In order to reduce the conformational space, this innovative method splits peptides into several short segments. Then, it uses the performance of intramolecular covalent docking to rebuild, sequentially, the complete peptide in the active site of its protein target. Once the peptide is constructed, a rescoring step is applied in order to correctly rank all IRDL solutions. Applied on a set of 11 crystallized peptide⁻protein complexes, the IRDL method shows promising results, since it is able to retrieve experimental binding conformations with a Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) below 2 Å in the top five ranked solutions. For some complexes, IRDL method outperforms two other docking protocols evaluated in this study. Hence, IRDL is a new tool that could be used in drug design projects to predict peptide⁻protein 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".