Reliable <i>In Silico</i> Ranking of Engineered Therapeutic TCR Binding Affinities with MMPB/GBSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Accurate and efficient in silico ranking of protein–protein binding affinities is useful for protein design with applications in biological therapeutics. One popular approach to rank binding affinities is to apply the molecular mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann/generalized Born surface area (MMPB/GBSA) method to molecular dynamics (MD) trajectories. Here, we identify protocols that enable the reliable evaluation of T-cell receptor (TCR) variants binding to their target, peptide-human leukocyte antigens (pHLAs). We suggest different protocols for variant sets with a few (≤4) or many mutations, with entropy corrections important for the latter. We demonstrate how potential outliers could be identified in advance and that just 5–10 replicas of short (4 ns) MD simulations may be sufficient for the reproducible and accurate ranking of TCR variants. The protocols developed here can be applied toward in silico screening during the optimization of therapeutic TCRs, potentially reducing both the cost and time taken for biologic development.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".