MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114907792 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf631.068

Prediction of protein binding residues for metal ions, nucleic acids, and small molecules

2025· article· en· W7114907792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmall moleculeNucleic acidBinding siteCysteineLigand (biochemistry)Protein–protein interactionPython (programming language)PeptidePlasma protein binding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Protein–ligand interactions are central to cellular regulation and therapeutic targeting. Experimental identification of binding residues remains costly and time-consuming, motivating the need for efficient computational approaches. We present an interpretable, XGBoost-based framework for residue-level prediction of protein binding sites specific to three ligand classes—metal ions, nucleic acids, and small molecules—emphasizing predictive accuracy and user accessibility. Methods A benchmark dataset [1] comprising 1314 annotated protein sequences was processed into peptide windows (±5, ±11, ±20 residues) centered on binding sites, maintaining a 1:3 ratio of positive to negative samples. Sequence-derived descriptors were generated using the iLearn toolkit, including amino acid composition (AAC), grouped AAC (GAAC), CTD composition, and BLOSUM62 substitution scores, yielding >8000 features subsequently reduced by feature-importance heuristics. More than 60 classifiers were evaluated; XGBoost consistently achieved superior performance after hyperparameter optimization. Results Independent models trained for each ligand type achieved high predictive power and biological interpretability. For small-molecule binding, the model attained an AUC of 0.99 and F1 of 0.91, with key features involving small residues (G, C, S, A) reflecting steric constraints. The nucleic-acid model reached AUC 0.99 and F1 0.95, highlighting glycine-rich and positively charged motifs typical of RNA/DNA interactions. The metal-ion model (AUC 0.92, F1 0.65) emphasized cysteine and histidine, consistent with metalloprotein binding patterns. Compared with reference CNN models, our framework achieved lower log-loss, greater interpretability, and stable cross-validation. Conclusion A standalone graphical user interface (GUI) implemented in Python allows users to input protein sequences and obtain residue-level binding probabilities, exportable as CSV files. This work demonstrates that well-engineered classical machine learning can rival deep learning in protein binding prediction, offering interpretable, high-performance tools to support biomedical and pharmaceutical research. References [1] Littmann M, Heinzinger M, Dallago C, Weissenow K, Rost B. Protein embeddings and deep learning predict binding residues for various ligand classes. Sci Rep. 2021 Dec 13;11(1):23916.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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