<i>WONKA</i>and<i>OOMMPPAA</i>: analysis of protein–ligand interaction data to direct structure-based drug design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, two freely available web-based interactive computational tools that facilitate the analysis and interpretation of protein-ligand interaction data are described. Firstly, WONKA, which assists in uncovering interesting and unusual features (for example residue motions) within ensembles of protein-ligand structures and enables the facile sharing of observations between scientists. Secondly, OOMMPPAA, which incorporates protein-ligand activity data with protein-ligand structural data using three-dimensional matched molecular pairs. OOMMPPAA highlights nuanced structure-activity relationships (SAR) and summarizes available protein-ligand activity data in the protein context. In this paper, the background that led to the development of both tools is described. Their implementation is outlined and their utility using in-house Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) data sets and openly available data from the PDB and ChEMBL is described. Both tools are freely available to use and download at http://wonka.sgc.ox.ac.uk/WONKA/ and http://oommppaa.sgc.ox.ac.uk/OOMMPPAA/.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".