MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964556356 · doi:10.1110/ps.03580104

The effects of nonnative interactions on protein folding rates: Theory and simulation

2004· article· en· W1964556356 on OpenAlexafffund
Cecilia Clementi, Steven S. Plotkin

Bibliographic record

VenueProtein Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaRice UniversityWelch FoundationCanada Research ChairsBurroughs Wellcome FundNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnergy landscapeLattice proteinProtein foldingFolding (DSP implementation)Statistical physicsNative statePhysicsDownhill foldingChemical physicsThermodynamicsPhi value analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteins are minimally frustrated polymers. However, for realistic protein models, nonnative interactions must be taken into account. In this paper, we analyze the effect of nonnative interactions on the folding rate and on the folding free energy barrier. We present an analytic theory to account for the modification on the free energy landscape upon introduction of nonnative contacts, added as a perturbation to the strong native interactions driving folding. Our theory predicts a rate-enhancement regime at fixed temperature, under the introduction of weak, nonnative interactions. We have thoroughly tested this theoretical prediction with simulations of a coarse-grained protein model, by using an off-lattice C(alpha)model of the src-SH3 domain. The strong agreement between results from simulations and theory confirm the nontrivial result that a relatively small amount of nonnative interaction energy can actually assist the folding to the native structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations166
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtein ScienceSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207