MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044487872 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2008.0202

Inverse Protein Folding in 3D Hexagonal Prism Lattice under HPC Model

2009· article· en· W2044487872 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Hadj Khodabakhshi, Ján Maňuch, Arash Rafiey, Arvind Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexagonal prismInverseConjectureHexagonal crystal systemProtein designLattice (music)Protein structure predictionProtein foldingProtein structureSimple (philosophy)CombinatoricsAmino acidMathematicsCrystallographyGeometryPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inverse protein folding problem is that of designing an amino acid sequence which has a prescribed native protein fold. This problem arises in drug design where a particular structure is necessary to ensure proper protein-protein interactions. Previously, tubular structures for a three-dimensional (3D) hexagonal prism lattice were introduced and their stability was formally proved for simple instances under the hydrophobic-polar (HP) model of Dill. In this article, we generalize the design of tubular structures to allow for much larger variety of designable structures by allowing branching of tubes. Our generalized design could be used to roughly approximate given 3D shapes in the considered lattice. Although the generalized tubular structures are not stable under the HP model, we can prove that a simple instance of generalized tubular structures is structurally stable (all native folds have the designed shape) under a refined version of the HP model, called the HPC model. We conjecture that there is a way to choose which hydrophobic monomers are cysteines in all generalized tubular structures such that the designed proteins are structurally stable under the HPC model.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207