CSM-carbohydrate: protein-carbohydrate binding affinity prediction and docking scoring function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-carbohydrate interactions are crucial for many cellular processes but can be challenging to biologically characterise. To improve our understanding and ability to model these molecular interactions, we used a carefully curated set of 370 protein-carbohydrate complexes with experimental structural and biophysical data in order to train and validate a new tool, cutoff scanning matrix (CSM)-carbohydrate, using machine learning algorithms to accurately predict their binding affinity and rank docking poses as a scoring function. Information on both protein and carbohydrate complementarity, in terms of shape and chemistry, was captured using graph-based structural signatures. Across both training and independent test sets, we achieved comparable Pearson's correlations of 0.72 under cross-validation [root mean square error (RMSE) of 1.58 Kcal/mol] and 0.67 on the independent test (RMSE of 1.72 Kcal/mol), providing confidence in the generalisability and robustness of the final model. Similar performance was obtained across mono-, di- and oligosaccharides, further highlighting the applicability of this approach to the study of larger complexes. We show CSM-carbohydrate significantly outperformed previous approaches and have implemented our method and make all data freely available through both a user-friendly web interface and application programming interface, to facilitate programmatic access at http://biosig.unimelb.edu.au/csm_carbohydrate/. We believe CSM-carbohydrate will be an invaluable tool for helping assess docking poses and the effects of mutations on protein-carbohydrate affinity, unravelling important aspects that drive binding recognition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".