Leveraging binding-site structure for drug discovery with point-cloud methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational drug discovery strategies can be broadly placed in two categories: ligand-based methods which identify novel molecules by similarity with known ligands, and structure-based methods which predict molecules with high-affinity to a given 3D structure (e.g. a protein). However, ligand-based methods do not leverage information about the binding site, and structure-based approaches rely on the knowledge of a finite set of ligands binding the target. In this work, we introduce TarLig, a novel approach that aims to bridge the gap between ligand and structure-based approaches. We use the 3D structure of the binding site as input to a model which predicts the ligand preferences of the binding site. The resulting predictions could then offer promising seeds and constraints in the chemical space search, based on the binding site structure. TarLig outperforms standard models by introducing a data-alignment and augmentation technique. The recent popularity of Volumetric 3DCNN pipelines in structural bioinformatics suggests that this extra step could help a wide range of methods to improve their results with minimal modifications.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".