Improving Strand Pairing Prediction through Exploring Folding Cooperativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topology of beta-sheets is defined by the pattern of hydrogen-bonded strand pairing. Therefore, predicting hydrogen bonded strand partners is a fundamental step towards predicting beta-sheet topology. At the same time, finding the correct partners is very difficult due to long range interactions involved in strand pairing. Additionally, patterns of amino acids involved, in beta-sheet formations are very general and therefore difficult to use for computational recognition of specific contacts between strands. In this work, we report a new strand pairing algorithm. To address above mentioned difficulties, our algorithm attempts to mimic elements of the folding process. Namely, in addition to ensuring that the predicted hydrogen bonded strand pairs satisfy basic global consistency constraints, it takes into account hypothetical folding pathways. Consistently with this view, introducing hydrogen bonds between a pair of strands changes the probabilities of forming hydrogen bonds between other pairs of strand. We demonstrate that this approach provides an improvement over previously proposed algorithms. We also compare the performance of this method to that of a global optimization algorithm that poses the problem as integer linear programming optimization problem and solves it using ILOG CPLEX package.
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 | 0.001 | 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".