GDockScore: a graph-based protein–protein docking scoring function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Protein complexes play vital roles in a variety of biological processes, such as mediating biochemical reactions, the immune response and cell signalling, with 3D structure specifying function. Computational docking methods provide a means to determine the interface between two complexed polypeptide chains without using time-consuming experimental techniques. The docking process requires the optimal solution to be selected with a scoring function. Here, we propose a novel graph-based deep learning model that utilizes mathematical graph representations of proteins to learn a scoring function (GDockScore). GDockScore was pre-trained on docking outputs generated with the Protein Data Bank biounits and the RosettaDock protocol, and then fine-tuned on HADDOCK decoys generated on the ZDOCK Protein Docking Benchmark. GDockScore performs similarly to the Rosetta scoring function on docking decoys generated using the RosettaDock protocol. Furthermore, state-of-the-art is achieved on the CAPRI score set, a challenging dataset for developing docking scoring functions. Availability and implementation: The model implementation is available at https://gitlab.com/mcfeemat/gdockscore. Supplementary information: online.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it