CACHE Challenge #2: Targeting the RNA Site of the SARS-CoV-2 Helicase Nsp13
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A critical assessment of computational hit-finding experiments (CACHE) challenge was conducted to predict ligands for the SARS-CoV-2 Nsp13 helicase RNA binding site, a highly conserved COVID-19 target. Twenty-three participating teams comprised of computational chemists and data scientists used protein structure and data from fragment-screening paired with advanced computational and machine learning methods to each predict up to 100 inhibitory ligands. Across all teams, 1957 compounds were predicted and were subsequently procured from commercial catalogs for biophysical assays. Of these compounds, 0.7% were confirmed to bind to Nsp13 in a surface plasmon resonance assay. The six best-performing computational workflows used fragment growing, active learning, or conventional virtual screening with and without complementary deep-learning scoring functions. Follow-up functional assays resulted in identification of two compound scaffolds that bound Nsp13 with a K d below 10 μM and inhibited in vitro helicase activity. Overall, CACHE #2 participants were successful in identifying hit compound scaffolds targeting Nsp13, a central component of the coronavirus replication-transcription complex. Computational design strategies recurrently successful across the first two CACHE challenges include linking or growing docked or crystallized fragments and docking small and diverse libraries to train ultrafast machine-learning models. The CACHE #2 competition reveals how crowd-sourcing ligand prediction efforts using a distinct array of approaches followed with critical biophysical assays can result in novel lead compounds to advance drug discovery efforts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".