Resolving coupled pH titrations using alchemical free energy calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a protein, nearby titratable sites can be coupled: the (de)protonation of one may affect the other. The degree of this interaction depends on several factors and can influence the measured . Here, we derive a formalism based on double free energy differences () for quantifying the individual site values of coupled residues. As values can be obtained by means of alchemical free energy calculations, the presented approach allows for a convenient estimation of coupled residue s in practice. We demonstrate that our approach and a previously proposed microscopic formalism, can be combined with alchemical free energy calculations to resolve pH‐dependent protein values. Toy models and both, regular and constant‐pH molecular dynamics simulations, alongside experimental data, are used to validate this approach. Our results highlight the insights gleaned when coupling and microstate probabilities are analyzed and suggest extensions to more complex enzymatic contexts. Furthermore, we find that naïvely computed values that ignore coupling, can be significantly improved when coupling is accounted for, in some cases reducing the error by half. In short, alchemical free energy methods can resolve the values of both uncoupled and coupled residues.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".