Hotspots API: A Python Package for the Detection of Small Molecule Binding Hotspots and Application to Structure-Based Drug Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods that survey protein surfaces for binding hotspots can help to evaluate target tractability and guide exploration of potential ligand binding regions. Fragment Hotspot Maps builds upon interaction data mined from the CSD (Cambridge Structural Database) and exploits the idea of identifying hotspots using small chemical fragments, which is now widely used to design new drug leads. Prior to this publication, Fragment Hotspot Maps was only publicly available through a web application. To increase the accessibility of this algorithm we present the Hotspots API (application programming interface), a toolkit that offers programmatic access to the core Fragment Hotspot Maps algorithm, thereby facilitating the interpretation and application of the analysis. To demonstrate the package's utility, we present a workflow which automatically derives protein hydrogen-bond constraints for molecular docking with GOLD. The Hotspots API is available from https://github.com/prcurran/hotspots under the MIT license and is dependent upon the commercial CSD Python API.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".