Residues with Similar Hexagon Neighborhoods Share Similar Side-Chain Conformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present in this study a new approach to code protein side-chain conformations into hexagon substructures. Classical side-chain packing methods consist of two steps: first, side-chain conformations, known as rotamers, are extracted from known protein structures as candidates for each residue; second, a searching method along with an energy function is used to resolve conflicts among residues and to optimize the combinations of side chain conformations for all residues. These methods benefit from the fact that the number of possible side-chain conformations is limited, and the rotamer candidates are readily extracted; however, these methods also suffer from the inaccuracy of energy functions. Inspired by threading and Ab Initio approaches to protein structure prediction, we propose to use hexagon substructures to implicitly capture subtle issues of energy functions. Our initial results indicate that even without guidance from an energy function, hexagon structures alone can capture side-chain conformations at an accuracy of 83.8 percent, higher than 82.6 percent by the state-of-art side-chain packing methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".