Modeling covalent-modifier drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, we present a summary of how computer modeling has been used in the development of covalent modifier drugs. Covalent modifier drugs bind by forming a chemical bond with their target. This covalent binding can improve the selectivity of the drug for a target with complementary reactivity and result in increased binding affinities due to the strength of the covalent bond formed. In some cases, this results in irreversible inhibition of the target, but some targeted covalent inhibitor (TCI) drugs bind covalently but reversibly. Computer modeling is widely used in drug discovery, but different computational methods must be used to model covalent modifiers because of the chemical bonds formed. Structural and bioinformatic analysis has identified sites of modification that could yield selectivity for a chosen target. Docking methods, which are used to rank binding poses of large sets of inhibitors, have been augmented to support the formation of protein--ligand bonds and are now capable of predicting the binding pose of covalent modifiers accurately. The pKa's of amino acids can be calculated in order to assess their reactivity towards electrophiles. QM/MM methods have been used to model the reaction mechanisms of covalent modification. The continued development of these tools will allow computation to aid in the development of new covalent modifier drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".