Energy calculations by the author's own KRUNCH and by a commercial Sculpt protein modeling package were used in Ref. [4], but were not required for the present study, with the exception that some calculations by these tools were used to obtain earlier unpublished results on sugar binding to amino acid residue sidechains. This provided a check on the preliminary sialic acid binding capability shown in column 4 of Table 1, used initially in the present paper. KRUNCH is a molecular mechanics modeling package that essentially functions like many standard molecular modeling packages. There is the arguable exception that it gives much more attention than usual to novel algorithms for navigating through multiple energy minima and discovering new conformers, but that capability did not appear to be too important in the present study. For the much greater part, however, these binding assessments were based on the amino acid residues observed by the author in sequences involved in sugar binding sites in proteins (found by visual examination of binding sites of entries in the PDB) and similar qualitative observations by other authors. That is, they also reflect rather general opinion of what amino acids are involved in sugar binding and in its most general formulation this intuitively comprises aromatic residues, and hydrogen bonding residues to interact with the sugar hydroxyl groups. At the outset, as a starting point only, column 4 of Table 1 of these preliminary sialic acid binding amino acid scores (SABS) are really assignments that are qualitative, using 0 for not often present in sialic acid glycan binding sites and 1 for often present,. However, tryptophan was assigned a double score of 2 reflecting its larger size and double ring. How reliable these assignments are in regard to sialic acid glycan binding is what is assessed on a more objective basis by the prediction method developed in this paper, including a degree of recalibration. The marginally modified parameters are also shown in the last column Table 1 for convenience of comparison. While as a methodological strategy it was tempting to start from an alternative more objective and established approach discussed in Results Section 4, or at least to use it as a starting point or as an important “gold standard” for comparison, it has substantially different aims.