MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154414334 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msq047

Statistical Potentials for Improved Structurally Constrained Evolutionary Models

2010· article· en· W2154414334 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudia L. Kleinman, Nicolas Rodrigue, Nicolas Lartillot, Hervé Philippe

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOntario GenomicsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPairwise comparisonProbabilistic logicStatistical modelBiologyStatistical potentialPhylogenetic treeProtein structure predictionComputer scienceProtein structureArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the influence of three-dimensional protein structure on sequence evolution is a difficult task, mainly because of the assumption of independence between sites required by probabilistic phylogenetic methods. Recently, models that include an explicit treatment of protein structure and site interdependencies have been developed: a statistical potential (an energy-like scoring system for sequence-structure compatibility) is used to evaluate the probability of fixation of a given mutation, assuming a coarse-grained protein structure that is constant through evolution. Yet, due to the novelty of these models and the small degree of overlap between the fields of structural and evolutionary biology, only simple representations of protein structure have been used so far. In this work, we present new forms of statistical potentials using a probabilistic framework recently developed for evolutionary studies. Terms related to pairwise distance interactions, torsion angles, solvent accessibility, and flexibility of the residues are included in the potentials, so as to study the effects of the main factors known to influence protein structure. The new potentials, with a more detailed representation of the protein structure, yield a better fit than the previously used scoring functions, with pairwise interactions contributing to more than half of this improvement. In a phylogenetic context, however, the structurally constrained models are still outperformed by some of the available site-independent models in terms of fit, possibly indicating that alternatives to coarse-grained statistical potentials should be explored in order to better model structural constraints.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207