MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015870840 · doi:10.1017/s0033583502003785

Understanding protein folding with energy landscape theory Part II: Quantitative aspects

2002· review· en· W2015870840 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

VenueQuarterly Reviews of Biophysics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy landscapeDownhill foldingFolding funnelThermodynamicsStatistical physicsProtein foldingContact orderPhase diagramPhase transitionChemistryPhysicsPhi value analysisPhase (matter)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Introduction 206 2. Quantifying the notions behind the energy landscape 206 2.1 Basic concepts of the Random Energy Model (REM) 206 2.2 Replica-symmetric partition functions and densities of states 209 2.3 The RHP phase diagram and avoided phase transitions 210 2.4 Basic concepts of the entropy of topologically constrained polymers 212 3. Beyond the Random Energy Model 219 3.1 The GREM and the glass transition in a finite RHP 222 4. Basics of configurational diffusion for RHPs and proteins 227 4.1 Kinetics on a correlated energy landscape 231 5. Thermodynamics and kinetics of protein folding 234 5.1 A protein Hamiltonian with cooperative interactions 234 5.2 Variance of native contact energies 235 5.3 Thermodynamics of protein folding 236 5.4 Free-energy surfaces and dynamics for a Hamiltonian with pair-wise interactions 240 5.5 The effects of cooperativity on folding 242 5.6 Transition-state drift 242 5.7 Phase diagram for a model protein 245 5.8 A non-Arrhenius folding-rate curve for proteins 246 6. Non-Markovian configurational diffusion and reaction coordinates in protein folding 247 6.1 An illustrative example 250 6.2 Non-Markovian rate theory and reaction surfaces 251 6.3 Application of non-Markovian rate theory to simulation data 257 7. Structural and energetic heterogeneity in the folding mechanism 259 7.1 The general strategy 261 7.2 An illustrative example 263 7.3 Free-energy functional 264 7.4 Dependence of the barrier height on mean loop length (contact order) and structural variance 268 7.5 Illustrations using lattice model proteins and functional theory 269 7.6 Connections of functional theory with experiments 271 8. Conclusions and future prospects 273 9. Acknowledgments 274 10. Appendices A. Table of common symbols 275 B. GREM construction for the glass transition 276 C. Effect of a Q -dependent diffusion coefficient 279 D. A frequency-dependent Einstein relation 279 11. References 281 We have seen in Part I of this review that the energy landscape theory of protein folding is a statistical description of a protein's complex potential energy surface, where individual folding events are sampled from an ensemble of possible routes on the landscape. We found that the most likely global structure for the landscape of a protein can be described as that of a partially random heteropolymer with a rugged, yet funneled landscape towards the native structure. Here we develop some quantitative aspects of folding using tools from the statistical mechanics of disordered systems, polymers, and phase transitions in finite-sized systems. Throughout the text we will refer to concepts and equations developed in Part I of the review, and the reader is advised to at least survey its contents before proceeding here. Sections, figures or equations from Part I are often prefixed with I- [e.g. Section I-1.1, Fig. I-1, Eq. (I-1.1)].

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.221 · 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