Ultrahigh-Throughput Virtual Screening Strategies against PPI Targets: A Case Study of STAT Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) libraries of synthetically accessible compounds (uHTVS) became a popular approach in hit identification. With AI-assisted virtual screening workflows, such as Deep Docking, these protocols might be feasible even without supercomputers. Yet, these methodologies have their own conceptual limitations, including the fact that physics-based docking is replaced by a cheaper deep learning (DL) step for the vast majority of compounds. In turn, the performance of this DL step will highly depend on the performance of the underlying docking model that is used to evaluate parts of the whole data set to train the DL architecture itself. Here, we evaluated the performance of the popular Deep Docking workflow on compound libraries of different sizes, against benchmark cases of classic brute-force docking approaches conducted on smaller libraries. We were especially interested in more difficult, protein-protein interaction-type oncotargets where the reliability of the underlying docking model is harder to assess. Specifically, our virtual screens have resulted in several new inhibitors of two oncogenic transcription factors, STAT3 and STAT5b. For STAT5b, in particular, we disclose the first application of virtual screening against its N-terminal domain, whose importance was recognized more recently. While the AI-based uHTVS is computationally more demanding, it can achieve exceptionally good hit rates (50.0% for STAT3). Deep Docking can also work well with a compound library containing only several million (instead of several billion) compounds, achieving a 42.9% hit rate against the SH2 domain of STAT5b, while presenting a highly economic workflow with just under 120,000 compounds actually docked.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".