MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008222101 · doi:10.1002/jcc.21796

Empirical prediction of protein p<i>K</i><sub>a</sub>values with residue mutation

2011· article· en· W2008222101 on OpenAlexaff
Steven K. Burger, Paul W. Ayers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistidineChemistryOverfittingResidue (chemistry)Mean squared errorMolecular dynamicsHydrogen bondComputational chemistryMoleculeEnzymeMathematicsBiochemistryOrganic chemistryComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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