Protein-protein docking using learned three-dimensional representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Protein-protein interactions are determined by a number of hard-to-capture features related to shape complementarity, electrostatics, and hydrophobicity. These features may be intrinsic to the protein or induced by the presence of a partner. A conventional approach to protein-protein docking consists in engineering a small number of spatial features for each protein, and in minimizing the sum of their correlations with respect to the spatial arrangement of the two proteins. To generalize this approach, we introduce a deep neural network architecture that transforms the raw atomic densities of each protein into complex three-dimensional representations. Each point in the volume containing the protein is described by 48 learned features, which are correlated and combined with the features of a second protein to produce a score dependent on the relative position and orientation of the two proteins. The architecture is based on multiple layers of SE(3)-equivariant convolutional neural networks, which provide built-in rotational and translational invariance of the score with respect to the structure of the complex. The model is trained end-to-end on a set of decoy conformations generated from 851 nonredundant protein-protein complexes and is tested on data from the Protein-Protein Docking Benchmark Version 4.0.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".