A computational method for the analysis and prediction of protein:phosphopeptide‐binding sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphopeptide-binding domains, including the FHA, SH2, WW, WD40, MH2, and Polo-box domains, as well as the 14-3-3 proteins, exert control functions in important processes such as cell growth, division, differentiation, and apoptosis. Structures and mechanisms of phosphopeptide binding are generally diverse, revealing few general principles. A computational method for analysis of phosphopeptide-binding domains was therefore developed to elucidate the physical and chemical nature of phosphopeptide binding, given this lack of structural similarity. The surfaces of nine phosphopeptide-binding proteins, representing seven distinct classes of phosphopeptide-binding modules, were discretized, and encoded with information about amino acid identity, surface curvature, and electrostatic potential at every point on the surface in order to identify local surface properties enriched in phosphoresidue contact sites. Cross-validation indicated that propensities corresponding to this enrichment calculated from a subset of the training data could be used to predict the phosphoresidue contact site on proteins not used in training with no false negative results, and with few unconfirmed positive predictions. The locations of phosphoresidue contact sites were then predicted on the surfaces of the checkpoint kinase Chk1 and the BRCA1 BRCT repeat domain, and these predictions are consistent with recent experimental evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".