Detection of Alpha-Rod Protein Repeats Using a Neural Network and Application to Huntingtin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of solved protein structures display an elongated structural domain, denoted here as alpha-rod, composed of stacked pairs of anti-parallel alpha-helices. Alpha-rods are flexible and expose a large surface, which makes them suitable for protein interaction. Although most likely originating by tandem duplication of a two-helix unit, their detection using sequence similarity between repeats is poor. Here, we show that alpha-rod repeats can be detected using a neural network. The network detects more repeats than are identified by domain databases using multiple profiles, with a low level of false positives (<10%). We identify alpha-rod repeats in approximately 0.4% of proteins in eukaryotic genomes. We then investigate the results for all human proteins, identifying alpha-rod repeats for the first time in six protein families, including proteins STAG1-3, SERAC1, and PSMD1-2 & 5. We also characterize a short version of these repeats in eight protein families of Archaeal, Bacterial, and Fungal species. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of these predictions in directing experimental work to demarcate three alpha-rods in huntingtin, a protein mutated in Huntington's disease. Using yeast two hybrid analysis and an immunoprecipitation technique, we show that the huntingtin fragments containing alpha-rods associate with each other. This is the first definition of domains in huntingtin and the first validation of predicted interactions between fragments of huntingtin, which sets up directions toward functional characterization of this protein. An implementation of the repeat detection algorithm is available as a Web server with a simple graphical output: http://www.ogic.ca/projects/ard. This can be further visualized using BiasViz, a graphic tool for representation of multiple sequence alignments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".