Exploring rigid-backbone protein docking in biologics discovery: a test using the DARPin scaffold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate protein-protein docking remains challenging, especially for artificial biologics not coevolved naturally against their protein targets, like antibodies and other engineered scaffolds. We previously developed ProPOSE, an exhaustive docker with full atomistic details, which delivers cutting-edge performance by allowing side-chain rearrangements upon docking. However, extensive protein backbone flexibility limits its practical applicability as indicated by unbound docking tests. To explore the usefulness of ProPOSE on systems with limited backbone flexibility, here we tested the engineered scaffold DARPin, which is characterized by its relatively rigid protein backbone. A prospective screening campaign was undertaken, in which sequence-diversified DARPins were docked and ranked against a directed epitope on the target protein BCL-W. In this proof-of-concept study, only a relatively small set of 2,213 diverse DARPin interfaces were selected for docking from the huge theoretical library from mutating 18 amino-acid positions. A computational selection protocol was then applied for enrichment of binders based on normalized computed binding scores and frequency of binding modes against the predefined epitope. The top-ranked 18 designed DARPin interfaces were selected for experimental validation. Three designs exhibited binding affinities to BCL-W in the nanomolar range comparable to control interfaces adopted from known DARPin binders. This result is encouraging for future screening and engineering campaigns of DARPins and possibly other similarly rigid scaffolds against targeted protein epitopes. Method limitations are discussed and directions for future refinements are proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".