MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069982947 · doi:10.1002/prot.1163

Probabilistic sampling of protein conformations: New hope for brute force?

2001· article· en· W2069982947 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformational isomerismProbabilistic logicProtein structureSampling (signal processing)AlgorithmProtein structure predictionComputer scienceProtein secondary structureSequence (biology)Statistical physicsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsChemistryMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein structure prediction from sequence alone by "brute force" random methods is a computationally expensive problem. Estimates have suggested that it could take all the computers in the world longer than the age of the universe to compute the structure of a single 200-residue protein. Here we investigate the use of a faster version of our FOLDTRAJ probabilistic all-atom protein-structure-sampling algorithm. We have improved the method so that it is now over twenty times faster than originally reported, and capable of rapidly sampling conformational space without lattices. It uses geometrical constraints and a Leonard-Jones type potential for self-avoidance. We have also implemented a novel method to add secondary structure-prediction information to make protein-like amounts of secondary structure in sampled structures. In a set of 100,000 probabilistic conformers of 1VII, 1ENH, and 1PMC generated, the structures with smallest Calpha RMSD from native are 3.95, 5.12, and 5.95A, respectively. Expanding this test to a set of 17 distinct protein folds, we find that all-helical structures are "hit" by brute force more frequently than beta or mixed structures. For small helical proteins or very small non-helical ones, this approach should have a "hit" close enough to detect with a good scoring function in a pool of several million conformers. By fitting the distribution of RMSDs from the native state of each of the 17 sets of conformers to the extreme value distribution, we are able to estimate the size of conformational space for each. With a 0.5A RMSD cutoff, the number of conformers is roughly 2N where N is the number of residues in the protein. This is smaller than previous estimates, indicating an average of only two possible conformations per residue when sterics are accounted for. Our method reduces the effective number of conformations available at each residue by probabilistic bias, without requiring any particular discretization of residue conformational space, and is the fastest method of its kind. With computer speeds doubling every 18 months and parallel and distributed computing becoming more practical, the brute force approach to protein structure prediction may yet have some hope in the near future.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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