SIMPROT: Using an empirically determined indel distribution in simulations of protein evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General protein evolution models help determine the baseline expectations for the evolution of sequences, and they have been extensively useful in sequence analysis and for the computer simulation of artificial sequence data sets. RESULTS: We have developed a new method of simulating protein sequence evolution, including insertion and deletion (indel) events in addition to amino-acid substitutions. The simulation generates both the simulated sequence family and a true sequence alignment that captures the evolutionary relationships between amino acids from different sequences. Our statistical model for indel evolution is based on the empirical indel distribution determined by Qian and Goldstein. We have parameterized this distribution so that it applies to sequences diverged by varying evolutionary times and generalized it to provide flexibility in simulation conditions. Our method uses a Monte-Carlo simulation strategy, and has been implemented in a C++ program named Simprot. CONCLUSION: Simprot will be useful for testing methods of analysis of protein sequence families particularly alignment methods, phylogenetic tree building, detection of recombination and horizontal gene transfer, and homology detection, where knowing the true course of sequence evolution is essential.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".