Docking for molecules that bind in a symmetric stack with SymDOCK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discovering ligands for amyloid fibrils, such as those formed by the tau protein, is an area of much current interest. In recent structures, ligands bind in stacks in the tau fibrils to reflect the rotational and translational symmetry of the fibril itself; in these structures the ligands make few interactions with the protein but interact extensively with each other. To exploit this symmetry and stacking, we developed SymDOCK, a method to dock molecules that follow the protein’s symmetry. For each prospective ligand pose, we apply the symmetry operation of the fibril to generate a self-interacting and fibril-interacting stack, checking that doing so will not cause a clash between the original molecule and its image. Absent a clash, we retain that pose and add the ligand-ligand van der Waals energy to the ligand’s docking score (here using DOCK3.8). We can check these geometries and energies using an implementation of ANI, a neural network-based quantum-mechanical evaluation of the ligand stacking energies. In retrospective calculations, symmetry docking can reproduce the poses of three tau PET tracers whose structures have been determined. More convincingly, in a prospective study SymDOCK predicted the structure of the PET tracer MK-6240 bound in a symmetrical stack to AD PHF tau before that structure was determined; the docked pose was used to determine how MK-6240 fit the cryo-EM density. In proof-of-concept studies, SymDOCK enriched known ligands over property-matched decoys in retrospective screens without sacrificing docking speed, and can address large library screens that seek new symmetrical stackers. Future applications of this approach will be considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".