Empirical prediction of protein p<i>K</i><sub>a</sub>values with residue mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fast, empirical method, Mut-pKa, is presented for predicting the pKa values of ionizable residues in proteins based on mutation. The method compares the effect of mutating each residue that may act as a hydrogen bond donor or acceptor for the ionizable residue. The energetic effect of each type of mutation, along with a desolvation measure and the overall background charge, is fit against pKa data for histidine and carboxyl residues. A total of 214 residues from 35 different proteins were used in the dataset. Using 11 parameters for each type of ionizable residue, a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.78 and 1.12 pH units were obtained for carboxyl and histidines residues, respectively, using leave one out cross validation (LOOCV). The results were particularly promising for buried residues, which had RMSE values of 0.99 and 1.13 for carboxyl and histidine residues, respectively. A number of desolvation measures were tested. The simplest measure, the number of atoms surrounding the residue, was found to work best. The effect of using dynamics was also studied using short molecular dynamics runs, followed by minimization of the structures. Mut-pKa has significantly fewer parameters than, but similar performance to, other empirical methods. Because of this and the LOOCV results, we believe the model is robust and that overfitting is not a problem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".