Molecular simulations of protein disorderThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue entitled “Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular & Cellular Biology 52nd Annual Meeting — Protein Folding: Principles and Diseases” and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein disorder is abundant in proteomes throughout all kingdoms of life and serves many biologically important roles. Disordered states of proteins are challenging to study experimentally due to their structural heterogeneity and tendency to aggregate. Computer simulations, which are not impeded by these properties, have recently emerged as a useful tool to characterize the conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins. In this review, we provide a survey of computational studies of protein disorder with an emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of these studies. The application of simulation techniques to the study of disordered states is described in the context of experimental and bioinformatics approaches. Experimental data can be incorporated into simulations, and simulations can provide predictions for experiment. In this way, simulations have been integrated into the existing methodologies for the study of disordered state ensembles. We provide recent examples of simulations of disordered states from the literature and our own work. Throughout the review, we emphasize important predictions and biophysical understanding made possible through the use of simulations. This review is intended as both an overview and a guide for structural biologists and theoretical biophysicists seeking accurate, atomic-level descriptions of disordered state ensembles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".