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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
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