Discrimination of native protein structures using atom–atom contact scoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a method for discriminating correctly folded proteins from well designed decoy structures using atom-atom and atom-solvent contact surfaces. The measure used to quantify contact surfaces integrates the solvent accessible surface and interatomic contacts into one quantity, allowing solvent to be treated as an atom contact. A scoring function was derived from statistical contact preferences within known protein structures and validated by using established protein decoy sets, including the "Rosetta" decoys and data from the CASP4 structure predictions. The scoring function effectively distinguished native structures from all corresponding decoys in >90% of the cases, using isolated protein subunits as target structures. If contacts between subunits within quaternary structures are included, the accuracy increases to 97%. Interactions beyond atom-atom contact range were not required to distinguish native structures from the decoys using this method. The contact scoring performed as well or better than existing statistical and physicochemical potentials and may be applied as an independent means of evaluating putative structural models.
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.
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 it