Explicit‐chain model of native‐state hydrogen exchange: Implications for event ordering and cooperativity in protein folding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Native-state hydrogen exchange experiments on several proteins have revealed partially unfolded conformations with diverse stabilities. These equilibrium observations have been used to support kinetic arguments that folding proceeds via a sequential "pathway." This interpretative logic is evaluated here by analyzing the relationship between thermodynamic behavior and folding kinetics in a class of simplified lattice protein models. The chain models studied have varying degrees of cooperative interplay (coupling) between local helical conformational preference and favorable nonlocal interactions. When model cooperativity is high, as native conditions are weakened, "isotherms" of free energy of exchange for residues belonging to the same helix merge together before global unfolding. The point of merger depends on the model energetic favorability of the helix. This trend is similar to the corresponding experimental observations. Kinetically, we find that the ordering of helix formation in the very last stage of native core assembly tends to follow the stabilities of their converged isotherms. In a majority (but not all) of folding trajectories, the final assembly of helices that are thermodynamically more stable against exchange precedes that of helices that are less stable against exchange. These model features are in partial agreement with common experimental interpretations. However, the model results also underscore the ensemble nature of the folding process: the kinetics of helix formation is not a discrete, strictly "all-or-none" process as that envisioned by certain non-explicit-chain models. Helices generally undergo many cycles of partial formation and dissolution before their conformations are fixed in the final assembly stage of folding, a kinetic stage that takes up only approximately 2% of the average folding time in the present model; and the ordering of the helices' final assembly in some trajectories can be different from the dominant ordering stipulated by the exchange isotherms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".