Analysis of Conformational B-Cell Epitopes in the Antibody-Antigen Complex Using the Depth Function and the Convex Hull
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of conformational b-cell epitopes plays an important role in immunoinformatics. Several computational methods are proposed on the basis of discrimination determined by the solvent-accessible surface between epitopes and non-epitopes, but the performance of existing methods is far from satisfying. In this paper, depth functions and the k-th surface convex hull are used to analyze epitopes and exposed non-epitopes. On each layer of the protein, we compute relative solvent accessibility and four different types of depth functions, i.e., Chakravarty depth, DPX, half-sphere exposure and half space depth, to analyze the location of epitopes on different layers of the proteins. We found that conformational b-cell epitopes are rich in charged residues Asp, Glu, Lys, Arg, His; aliphatic residues Gly, Pro; non-charged residues Asn, Gln; and aromatic residue Tyr. Conformational b-cell epitopes are rich in coils. Conservation of epitopes is not significantly lower than that of exposed non-epitopes. The average depths (obtained by four methods) for epitopes are significantly lower than that of non-epitopes on the surface using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Epitopes are more likely to be located in the outer layer of the convex hull of a protein. On the benchmark dataset, the cumulate 10th convex hull covers 84.6% of exposed residues on the protein surface area, and nearly 95% of epitope sites. These findings may be helpful in building a predictor for epitopes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".