MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413805020 · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c01188

Decoding BCL6 Inhibitors: Computational Insights into the Impact of Water Networks on Potency

2025· article· en· W4413805020 on OpenAlexaff
Daniella E. Hares, Andrea Scarpino, Michael S. Bodnarchuk, Swen Hoelder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchDiscovery Centre
FundersMedical Research CouncilAstraZenecaAstraZeneca UK
KeywordsBCL6ChemistryMoleculeWater chemistryComputational chemistryDrug discoveryComputer scienceBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water molecules in the binding site can have a critical role in small molecule binding to proteins and are an important consideration in structure-based drug design. Water networks have additional complexity as displacing one water molecule has subsequent effects on the remaining network. Modification of a lead compound that disrupts a water network can have beneficial or detrimental impacts on potency and this outcome is impossible to determine experimentally without time-consuming synthesis of the new compound. Computational methods are ideally suited to study the interplay between ligand optimization and water displacement by predicting the effect of structural changes on both the activity of the compound and the stability of neighboring water molecules. We used Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations and alchemical free energy calculations to retrospectively study a series of B-cell Lymphoma 6 (BCL6) inhibitors that sequentially displaced water molecules from a network. The methods were used to rationalize the structure-activity relationship of the compounds by quantifying the individual contributions to the binding affinity from the changes in the water network and new interactions with the protein. GCMC simulations are well-suited for studying water networks in the binding site and were able to reproduce 94% of the experimentally observed water sites from the crystal structures in a subpocket of BCL6. Using the BCL6 project as an example, we show the power of these computational methods to study water networks and how they can provide insights that are able to guide drug discovery projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207