Pattern similarity study of functional sites in protein sequences: lysozymes and cystatins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although it is generally agreed that topography is more conserved than sequences, proteins sharing the same fold can have different functions, while there are protein families with low sequence similarity. An alternative method for profile analysis of characteristic conserved positions of the motifs within the 3D structures may be needed for functional annotation of protein sequences. Using the approach of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR), we have proposed a new algorithm for postulating functional mechanisms on the basis of pattern similarity and average of property values of side-chains in segments within sequences. This approach was used to search for functional sites of proteins belonging to the lysozyme and cystatin families. RESULTS: Hydrophobicity and beta-turn propensity of reference segments with 3-7 residues were used for the homology similarity search (HSS) for active sites. Hydrogen bonding was used as the side-chain property for searching the binding sites of lysozymes. The profiles of similarity constants and average values of these parameters as functions of their positions in the sequences could identify both active and substrate binding sites of the lysozyme of Streptomyces coelicolor, which has been reported as a new fold enzyme (Cellosyl). The same approach was successfully applied to cystatins, especially for postulating the mechanisms of amyloidosis of human cystatin C as well as human lysozyme. CONCLUSION: Pattern similarity and average index values of structure-related properties of side chains in short segments of three residues or longer were, for the first time, successfully applied for predicting functional sites in sequences. This new approach may be applicable to studying functional sites in un-annotated proteins, for which complete 3D structures are not yet available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".