Computational Assignment of Protein Backbone NMR Peaks by Efficient Bounding and Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NMR resonance assignment is one of the key steps in solving an NMR protein structure. The assignment process links resonance peaks to individual residues of the target protein sequence, providing the prerequisite for establishing intra- and inter-residue spatial relationships between atoms. The assignment process is tedious and time-consuming, which could take many weeks. Though there exist a number of computer programs to assist the assignment process, many NMR labs are still doing the assignments manually to ensure quality. This paper presents a new computational method based on the combination of a suite of algorithms for automating the assignment process, particularly the process of backbone resonance peak assignment. We formulate the assignment problem as a constrained weighted bipartite matching problem. While the problem, in the most general situation, is NP-hard, we present an efficient solution based on a branch-and-bound algorithm with effective bounding techniques using two recently introduced approximation algorithms. We also devise a greedy filtering algorithm for reducing the search space. Our experimental results on 70 instances of (pseudo) real NMR data derived from 14 proteins demonstrate that the new solution runs much faster than a recently introduced (exhaustive) two-layer algorithm and recovers more correct peak assignments than the two-layer algorithm. Our result demonstrates that integrating different algorithms can achieve a good tradeoff between backbone assignment accuracy and computation time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".