Enhanced sampling of protein conformational states for dynamic cross‐docking within the protein‐protein docking server SwarmDock
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
The formation of specific protein-protein interactions is often a key to a protein's function. During complex formation, each protein component will undergo a change in the conformational state, for some these changes are relatively small and reside primarily at the sidechain level; however, others may display notable backbone adjustments. One of the classic problems in the protein-docking field is to be able to a priori predict the extent of such conformational changes. In this work, we investigated three protocols to find the most suitable input structure conformations for cross-docking, including a robust sampling approach in normal mode space. Counterintuitively, knowledge of the theoretically best combination of normal modes for unbound-bound transitions does not always lead to the best results. We used a novel spatial partitioning library, Aether Engine (see Supplementary Materials), to efficiently search the conformational states of 56 receptor/ligand pairs, including a recent CAPRI target, in a systematic manner and selected diverse conformations as input to our automated docking server, SwarmDock, a server that allows moderate conformational adjustments during the docking process. In essence, here we present a dynamic cross-docking protocol, which when benchmarked against the simpler approach of just docking the unbound components shows a 10% uplift in the quality of the top docking pose.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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