Identification of Catechins’ Binding Sites in Monomeric Aβ42 through Ensemble Docking and MD Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assembly of the amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) into toxic oligomers and fibrils is associated with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Therefore, disrupting amyloid assembly by direct targeting of the Aβ monomeric form with small molecules or antibodies is a promising therapeutic strategy. However, given the dynamic nature of Aβ, standard computational tools cannot be easily applied for high-throughput structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery projects. In the current study, we propose a computational pipeline—in the framework of the ensemble docking strategy—to identify catechins’ binding sites in monomeric Aβ42. It is shown that both hydrophobic aromatic interactions and hydrogen bonding are crucial for the binding of catechins to Aβ42. Additionally, it has been found that all the studied ligands, especially EGCG, can act as potent inhibitors against amyloid aggregation by blocking the central hydrophobic region of Aβ. Our findings are evaluated and confirmed with multi-microsecond MD simulations. Finally, it is suggested that our proposed pipeline, with low computational cost in comparison with MD simulations, is a suitable approach for the virtual screening of ligand libraries against Aβ.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".