Probing protein ensemble rigidity and hydrogen–deuterium exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein rigidity and flexibility can be analyzed accurately and efficiently using the program floppy inclusion and rigid substructure topography (FIRST). Previous studies using FIRST were designed to analyze the rigidity and flexibility of proteins using a single static (snapshot) structure. It is however well known that proteins can undergo spontaneous sub-molecular unfolding and refolding, or conformational dynamics, even under conditions that strongly favor a well-defined native structure. These (local) unfolding events result in a large number of conformers that differ from each other very slightly. In this context, proteins are better represented as a thermodynamic ensemble of 'native-like' structures, and not just as a single static low-energy structure. Working with this notion, we introduce a novel FIRST-based approach for predicting rigidity/flexibility of the protein ensemble by (i) averaging the hydrogen bonding strengths from the entire ensemble and (ii) by refining the mathematical model of hydrogen bonds. Furthermore, we combine our FIRST-ensemble rigidity predictions with the ensemble solvent accessibility data of the backbone amides and propose a novel computational method which uses both rigidity and solvent accessibility for predicting hydrogen-deuterium exchange (HDX). To validate our predictions, we report a novel site specific HDX experiment which characterizes the native structural ensemble of Acylphosphatase from hyperthermophile Sulfolobus solfataricus (Sso AcP). The sub-structural conformational dynamics that is observed by HDX data, is closely matched with the FIRST-ensemble rigidity predictions, which could not be attained using the traditional single 'snapshot' rigidity analysis. Moreover, the computational predictions of regions that are protected from HDX and those that undergo exchange are in very good agreement with the experimental HDX profile of Sso AcP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".