HingeMaster: Normal mode hinge prediction approach and integration of complementary predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein motion is often the link between structure and function and a substantial fraction of proteins move through a domain hinge bending mechanism. Predicting the location of the hinge from a single structure is thus a logical first step towards predicting motion. Here, we describe ways to predict the hinge location by grouping residues with correlated normal-mode motions. We benchmarked our normal-mode based predictor against a gold standard set of carefully annotated hinge locations taken from the Database of Macromolecular Motions. We then compared it with three existing structure-based hinge predictors (TLSMD, StoneHinge, and FlexOracle), plus HingeSeq, a sequence-based hinge predictor. Each of these methods predicts hinges using very different sources of information-normal modes, experimental thermal factors, bond constraint networks, energetics, and sequence, respectively. Thus it is logical that using these algorithms together would improve predictions. We integrated all the methods into a combined predictor using a weighted voting scheme. Finally, we encapsulated all our results in a web tool which can be used to run all the predictors on submitted proteins and visualize the results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".