SPINE X: Improving protein secondary structure prediction by multistep learning coupled with prediction of solvent accessible surface area and backbone torsion angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate prediction of protein secondary structure is essential for accurate sequence alignment, three-dimensional structure modeling, and function prediction. The accuracy of ab initio secondary structure prediction from sequence, however, has only increased from around 77 to 80% over the past decade. Here, we developed a multistep neural-network algorithm by coupling secondary structure prediction with prediction of solvent accessibility and backbone torsion angles in an iterative manner. Our method called SPINE X was applied to a dataset of 2640 proteins (25% sequence identity cutoff) previously built for the first version of SPINE and achieved a 82.0% accuracy based on 10-fold cross validation (Q(3)). Surpassing 81% accuracy by SPINE X is further confirmed by employing an independently built test dataset of 1833 protein chains, a recently built dataset of 1975 proteins and 117 CASP 9 targets (critical assessment of structure prediction techniques) with an accuracy of 81.3%, 82.3% and 81.8%, respectively. The prediction accuracy is further improved to 83.8% for the dataset of 2640 proteins if the DSSP assignment used above is replaced by a more consistent consensus secondary structure assignment method. Comparison to the popular PSIPRED and CASP-winning structure-prediction techniques is made. SPINE X predicts number of helices and sheets correctly for 21.0% of 1833 proteins, compared to 17.6% by PSIPRED. It further shows that SPINE X consistently makes more accurate prediction in helical residues (6%) without over prediction while PSIPRED makes more accurate prediction in coil residues (3-5%) and over predicts them by 7%. SPINE X Server and its training/test datasets are available at http://sparks.informatics.iupui.edu/
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".