MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980703922 · doi:10.1002/jcc.20909

The minimized dead‐end elimination criterion and its application to protein redesign in a hybrid scoring and search algorithm for computing partition functions over molecular ensembles

2008· article· en· W1980703922 on OpenAlexaff
Ivelin S. Georgiev, Ryan Lilien, Bruce R. Donald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsComputer scienceConformational isomerismEnergy minimizationAlgorithmEnergy (signal processing)PruningMathematical optimizationChemistryComputational chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main challenges for protein redesign is the efficient evaluation of a combinatorial number of candidate structures. The modeling of protein flexibility, typically by using a rotamer library of commonly-observed low-energy side-chain conformations, further increases the complexity of the redesign problem. A dominant algorithm for protein redesign is dead-end elimination (DEE), which prunes the majority of candidate conformations by eliminating rigid rotamers that provably are not part of the global minimum energy conformation (GMEC). The identified GMEC consists of rigid rotamers (i.e., rotamers that have not been energy-minimized) and is thus referred to as the rigid-GMEC. As a postprocessing step, the conformations that survive DEE may be energy-minimized. When energy minimization is performed after pruning with DEE, the combined protein design process becomes heuristic, and is no longer provably accurate: a conformation that is pruned using rigid-rotamer energies may subsequently minimize to a lower energy than the rigid-GMEC. That is, the rigid-GMEC and the conformation with the lowest energy among all energy-minimized conformations (the minimized-GMEC) are likely to be different. While the traditional DEE algorithm succeeds in not pruning rotamers that are part of the rigid-GMEC, it makes no guarantees regarding the identification of the minimized-GMEC. In this paper we derive a novel, provable, and efficient DEE-like algorithm, called minimized-DEE (MinDEE), that guarantees that rotamers belonging to the minimized-GMEC will not be pruned, while still pruning a combinatorial number of conformations. We show that MinDEE is useful not only in identifying the minimized-GMEC, but also as a filter in an ensemble-based scoring and search algorithm for protein redesign that exploits energy-minimized conformations. We compare our results both to our previous computational predictions of protein designs and to biological activity assays of predicted protein mutants. Our provable and efficient minimized-DEE algorithm is applicable in protein redesign, protein-ligand binding prediction, and computer-aided drug design.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations140
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207