MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022771323 · doi:10.1145/2807591.2807630

Engineering inhibitory proteins with InSiPS: the in-silico protein synthesizer

2015· article· en· W2022771323 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Schoenrock, Daniel Burnside, Houman Moteshareie, Alex Wong, Ashkan Golshani, Frank Dehne, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoFunction (biology)Target proteinInhibitory postsynaptic potentialComputational biologyMassively parallelBiologyCell biologyComputer scienceGeneBiochemistryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineered proteins are synthetic novel proteins (not found in nature) that are designed to fulfill a predetermined biological function. Such proteins can be used as molecular markers, inhibitory agents, or drugs. For example, a synthetic protein could bind to a critical protein of a pathogen, thereby inhibiting the function of the target protein and potentially reducing the impact of the pathogen. In this paper we present the In-Silico Protein Synthesizer (InSiPS), a massively parallel computational tool for the IBM Blue Gene/Q that is aimed at designing inhibitory proteins. More precisely, InSiPS designs proteins that are predicted to interact with a given target protein (and may inhibit the target's cellular functions) while leaving non-target proteins unaffected (to minimize side-effects). As proof-of-concepts, two InSiPS designed proteins have been synthesized in the lab and their inhibitory properties have been experimentally verified through wet-lab experimentation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207