Assessment of Different Parameters on the Accuracy of Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein–Protein Complexes with the Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational alanine scanning with the molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) method constitutes a widely used approach for identifying critical residues at protein-protein interfaces. Despite its popularity, the MM/GBSA method still has certain drawbacks due to its dependence on many factors. Here, we performed a systematical study on the impact of four different parameters, namely, the internal dielectric constant, the generalized Born model, the entropic term, and the inclusion of structural waters on the accuracy of computational alanine scanning calculations with the MM/GBSA method. Our results show that the internal dielectric constant is the most critical parameter for getting accurate predictions. The introduction of entropy and interfacial water molecules decreased the quality of the predictions, while the generalized Born model had little to no effect. Considering the significance of the internal dielectric value, we proposed a methodology based on the energetic predominance of a particular set of amino acids at the protein-protein interface for selecting an appropriate value for this variable. We hope that these results serve as a guideline for future studies of protein-protein complexes using the MM/GBSA method.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".