A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Key Residues Involved in Protein–Protein Interactions Exemplified with SARS-CoV-2 Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human infection with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mediated by the binding of the spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The frequent mutations in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein induced the emergence of variants with increased contagion and can hinder vaccine efficiency. Hence, it is crucial to better understand the binding mechanisms of variant RBDs to human ACE2 and develop efficient methods to characterize this interaction. In this work, we present an approach that uses machine learning to analyze the molecular dynamics simulations of RBD variant trajectories bound to ACE2. Along with the binding free energy calculation, this method was used to characterize the major differences in ACE2-binding capacity of three SARS-CoV-2 RBD variants-namely the original Wuhan strain, Omicron BA.1, and the more recent Omicron BA.5 sublineages. Our analyses assessed the differences in binding free energy and shed light on how it affects the infectious rates of different variants. Furthermore, this approach successfully characterized key binding interactions and could be deployed as an efficient tool to predict different binding inhibitors to pave the way for new preventive and therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".