LABind: identifying protein binding ligand-aware sites via learning interactions between ligand and protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-ligand interactions are crucial for understanding various biological processes and drug discovery and design. However, experimental methods are costly; single-ligand-oriented methods are tailored to specific ligands; multi-ligand-oriented methods are constrained by the lack of ligand encoding. In this study, we propose a structure-based method called LABind, designed to predict binding sites for small molecules and ions in a ligand-aware manner. LABind utilizes a graph transformer to capture binding patterns within the local spatial context of proteins, and incorporates a cross-attention mechanism to learn the distinct binding characteristics between proteins and ligands. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets demonstrate both the effectiveness of LABind and its ability to generalize to unseen ligands. Further analysis validates that LABind can effectively integrate ligand information to predict binding sites. Additionally, the application of LABind is extended to binding site center localization, sequence-based methods, and molecular docking tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".