Flexible Fitting of PROTAC Concentration–Response Curves with Changepoint Gaussian Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) is a new technology that marks proteins for degradation in a highly specific manner. During screening, PROTAC compounds are tested in concentration–response (CR) assays to determine their potency, and parameters such as the half-maximal degradation concentration (DC50) are estimated from the fitted CR curves. These parameters are used to rank compounds, with lower DC50 values indicating greater potency. However, PROTAC data often exhibit biphasic and polyphasic relationships, making standard sigmoidal CR models inappropriate. A common solution includes manual omitting of points (the so-called masking step), allowing standard models to be used on the reduced data sets. Due to its manual and subjective nature, masking becomes a costly and nonreproducible procedure. We therefore used a Bayesian changepoint Gaussian processes model that can flexibly fit both nonsigmoidal and sigmoidal CR curves without user input. Parameters such as the DC50, maximum effect Dmax, and point of departure (PoD) are estimated from the fitted curves. We then rank compounds based on one or more parameters and propagate the parameter uncertainty into the rankings, enabling us to confidently state if one compound is better than another. Hence, we used a flexible and automated procedure for PROTAC screening experiments. By minimizing subjective decisions, our approach reduces time and cost and ensures reproducibility of the compound-ranking procedure. The code and data are provided on GitHub (https://github.com/elizavetasemenova/gp_concentration_response).
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".