# Structure-based binding track — working notes Branch `structure-based-binding`. Implements PLAN §12. Baseline-first, start with the two cleanest targets (Hemoglobin + PKR), de-risk the harness before scaling. ## Status (2026-06-23) **Toolchain check (PLAN §12.6 pitfall 4, confirmed real):** - ✅ RDKit installs on ARM Mac — ligand side ready. - ❌ AutoDock Vina does NOT pip-install on ARM Mac; no docking binary available. Docking (§12.3) is **blocked on toolchain** — must resolve via conda/micromamba (`vina`/`smina`), a GPU AF3-class model (Boltz-2/Chai-1/DiffDock), or an x86 Vina binary under Rosetta. **Structures obtained:** `5E83` (hemoglobin + voxelotor), `8XFD` (PKR + mitapivat) in `data/raw/structures/`. **Step 0 — ligand-based retrieval baseline (`scripts/binding_ligand_baseline.py`):** RDKit Tanimoto of our 300 drugs vs known sickle binders. - Engine VALIDATED on in-set classes: `decitabine`→azacitidine (0.62); `vorinostat`→scriptaid (0.42), belinostat (0.28). Correctly clusters DNMT1 / HDAC HbF-inducers. - But voxelotor / mitapivat have **no analog** in our set (max Tanimoto ~0.20–0.26). A 300-drug library is too sparse to contain look-alikes of distinctive scaffolds. **Takeaways:** 1. Ligand retrieval works but needs a **bigger drug library** to be useful for distinctive targets. 2. The targets without in-set analogs (Hb, PKR) need **actual docking** (§12.3) — which scores binding directly, no look-alike required. That is the gating next step, and it needs the toolchain solved. ## Step 1 — docking baseline (2026-06-24) **Toolchain SOLVED on ARM Mac:** AutoDock Vina 1.2.5 mac binary (`tools/vina`, runs under Rosetta) + open-babel (brew) for prep. Docking runs end-to-end (`scripts/dock_positive_controls.py`). Co-crystal ligands identified: 5L7 = voxelotor (5E83), WV2 = mitapivat (8XFD). **Positive-control cross-docking — inconclusive, and instructively so.** Affinities (kcal/mol): | ligand | hemoglobin | PKR | |---|---|---| | voxelotor | −8.1 | −9.3 | | mitapivat | −10.0 | −11.2 | | decitabine | −6.6 | −7.0 | | hydroxyurea | −3.9 | −3.6 | | caffeine | −6.1 | −6.4 | The scores rank almost perfectly by **molecular size** (mitapivat > voxelotor > decitabine/caffeine > hydroxyurea) in *both* pockets — mitapivat wins even on hemoglobin, which it doesn't target. So raw Vina affinity is confounded by ligand size and per-pocket stickiness; it cannot yet distinguish target-specific binding. This is the **docking analog of the connectivity specificity problem** — raw scores carry a systematic bias (size here, broadness there) that masquerades as signal. voxelotor *does* dock to Hb (−8.1, a real score); the cross-target test just isn't the right validation. ## Step 2 — redocking-RMSD validation FAILS across the board (2026-06-24) Redocked each co-crystal ligand into its own structure (`scripts/dock_validate.py`); RMSD vs crystal pose via obrms: | redock | RMSD | note | |---|---|---| | voxelotor → Hb (5E83) | NA | covalent binder (Schiff base, αVal1) — out of scope §12.7 | | mitapivat → PKR (8XFD) | 8.2 Å | allosteric, cofactor (FBP/Mg) stripped | | **vorinostat → HDAC2 (4LXZ, Zn kept)** | **7.9 Å** | classical non-covalent target — should have worked | **The clean target also failing means this is a systematic PIPELINE-QUALITY problem, not target choice.** The cheap Vina + open-babel setup produces scores but does not reproduce known binding geometry, so its affinities are not yet trustworthy. Ligand efficiency (affinity / heavy atoms) also doesn't fix it — it over-corrects, ranking tiny hydroxyurea (−0.78) "best". Likely causes (in priority order): 1. **Low-quality receptor prep** — open-babel `-xr` is not production docking prep. Need AutoDockTools `prepare_receptor` or **Meeko** + `reduce`/pdb2pqr for protonation, charges, and proper AutoDock atom typing. 2. **Ligand prep** — should use Meeko (correct rotatable bonds / typing), not bare obabel `--gen3d`. 3. **RMSD metric** — obrms superimposes before RMSD; redocking validation wants symmetry-corrected RMSD **in place** (receptor frame). Worth confirming with an in-place metric. **Honest takeaway:** consistent with the whole project — the *quick* version of each method runs but doesn't survive honest validation. Credible structure-based docking needs production prep tooling (Meeko/ADFR), which is the real next investment for this track. ## Step 3 — production prep helps, but classical docking is the wrong tool here (2026-06-24) `scripts/dock_production.py`: Meeko ligand prep (proper rotatable-bond/AD typing) + in-place symmetry-corrected RMSD (spyrmsd, not obrms which superimposes). On the clean HDAC2/vorinostat target (Zn kept): - **7.9 Å → 4.76 Å** with proper ligand prep + correct metric. Prep and metric genuinely mattered. - But still FAIL (>2 Å). The residual is the deeper problem: **vorinostat binding is defined by its hydroxamate chelating the catalytic Zn, and Vina has no metal-coordination term** — it cannot score the interaction that determines the pose. **The real finding: sickle's druggable targets bind via non-classical chemistry that classical docking handles poorly** — Hb/voxelotor (covalent), PKR/mitapivat (allosteric + cofactor), HDAC/vorinostat (Zn chelation). This is the target landscape, not bad luck. AutoDock Vina is the wrong tool for it. **Redirect:** the modality that DOES handle covalent/metal/induced-fit binding is **data-driven AF3-class co-folding** (Boltz-2 / Chai-1 / DiffDock — they learn these modes from the PDB). That is the indicated next tool for this disease — and it's gated by the **24 GB local memory ceiling** (PLAN §12.6 pitfall 4): needs a cloud GPU or a bigger box. The "GPU breaks all-local" prediction is now the binding constraint of the whole track. ## Next steps - [ ] AF3-class co-folding on a GPU (Boltz-2 affinity / Chai-1 / DiffDock); redo the §12.4 positive-control recovery test there — it should handle the metal/covalent modes Vina can't. - [ ] (optional) Salvage one classical Vina case: PKR with FBP/Mg cofactors RETAINED, to confirm the harness can validate on a non-metal sickle target. - [ ] Production receptor prep (Meeko mk_prepare_receptor + protonation) if staying with Vina. - [ ] §12.9 generative beacon — only after a validated scoring function exists. > **Hardware note:** this machine is **24 GB** unified memory (not the 96 GB PLAN §2 assumed), > which caps local AF3-class model inference. Classical docking (above) is unaffected.