How does symmetry impact the flexibility of proteins?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that (i) the flexibility and rigidity of proteins are central to their function, (ii) a number of oligomers with several copies of individual protein chains assemble with symmetry in the native state and (iii) added symmetry sometimes leads to added flexibility in structures. We observe that the most common symmetry classes of protein oligomers are also the symmetry classes that lead to increased flexibility in certain three-dimensional structures-and investigate the possible significance of this coincidence. This builds on the well-developed theory of generic rigidity of body-bar frameworks, which permits an analysis of the rigidity and flexibility of molecular structures such as proteins via fast combinatorial algorithms. In particular, we outline some very simple counting rules and possible algorithmic extensions that allow us to predict continuous symmetry-preserving motions in body-bar frameworks that possess non-trivial point-group symmetry. For simplicity, we focus on dimers, which typically assemble with twofold rotational axes, and often have allosteric function that requires motions to link distant sites on the two protein chains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".