Fragment Hotspot Mapping to Identify Selectivity-Determining Regions between Related Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selectivity is a crucial property in small molecule development. Binding site comparisons within a protein family are a key piece of information when aiming to modulate the selectivity profile of a compound. Binding site differences can be exploited to confer selectivity for a specific target, while shared areas can provide insights into polypharmacology. As the quantity of structural data grows, automated methods are needed to process, summarize, and present these data to users. We present a computational method that provides quantitative and data-driven summaries of the available binding site information from an ensemble of structures of the same protein. The resulting ensemble maps identify the key interactions important for ligand binding in the ensemble. The comparison of ensemble maps of related proteins enables the identification of selectivity-determining regions within a protein family. We applied the method to three examples from the well-researched human bromodomain and kinase families, demonstrating that the method is able to identify selectivity-determining regions that have been used to introduce selectivity in past drug discovery campaigns. We then illustrate how the resulting maps can be used to automate comparisons across a target protein family.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".