MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017389654 · doi:10.1002/prot.10459

The importance of explicit chain representation in protein folding models: An examination of ising‐like models

2003· article· en· W2017389654 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John Karanicolas, Charles L. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Ising modelChain (unit)Folding (DSP implementation)Statistical physicsProtein foldingComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceComputational biologyPhysicsBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A class of models that represents a protein chain as a sequence of "folded" and "unfolded" residues has recently been used to correlate rates and mechanisms of protein folding with the protein native structure. In order to better understand the conditions under which these "Ising-like" models apply, we compare results from this model to those obtained from an off-lattice model which uses the same potential function. We find that Ising-like models by construction impose folding via a highly sequential nucleation-condensation mechanism, which in turn leads to more rugged energy landscapes, fewer "pathways" to the native state, and in the specific case examined here, the cold shock protein A from Escherichia coli, a qualitative difference in the most likely order of events in folding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207