Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39092736›Full record

ReviewCurrent medicinal chemistry2025

Machine Learning Meets Physics-based Modeling: A Mass-spring System to Predict Protein-ligand Binding Affinity.

Walter Filgueira de Azevedo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Walter Filgueira de AzevedoDepartment of Physics, Institute of Exact Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Av. Jovino Fernandes de Sales 2600, Bairro Santa Clara, Alfenas, MG., 37133-840, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8640-357X

Funding

Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) 308883/2014-4, 309029/2018-0, 306298/2022-8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputational assessment of the energetics of protein-ligand complexes is a challenge in the early stages of drug discovery. Previous comparative studies on computational methods to calculate the binding affinity showed that targeted scoring functions outperform universal models.

objectiveThe goal here is to review the application of a simple physics-based model to estimate the binding. The focus is on a mass-spring system developed to predict binding affinity against cyclin-dependent kinase.

methodPublications in PubMed were searched to find mass-spring models to predict binding affinity. Crystal structures of cyclin-dependent kinases found in the protein data bank and two web servers to calculate affinity based on the atomic coordinates were employed.

resultsOne recent study showed how a simple physics-based scoring function (named Taba) could contribute to the analysis of protein-ligand interactions. Taba methodology outperforms robust physics-based models implemented in docking programs such as AutoDock4 and Molegro Virtual Docker. Predictive metrics of 27 scoring functions and energy terms highlight the superior performance of the Taba scoring function for cyclin- dependent kinase.

conclusionThe recent progress of machine learning methods and the availability of these techniques through free libraries boosted the development of more accurate models to address protein-ligand interactions. Combining a naïve mass-spring system with machine-learning techniques generated a targeted scoring function with superior predictive performance to estimate pK

Indexed as

Cyclin-Dependent KinasesMachine LearningProteinsHumansLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingCyclin-Dependent KinasesLigandsProteinsartificial intelligenceCDK.deep learningmachine learningmass-spring systemPhysics-based model

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.