STRUCTURE-APPROXIMATING DESIGN OF STABLE PROTEINS IN 2D HP MODEL FORTIFIED BY CYSTEINE MONOMERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inverse protein folding problem is that of designing an amino acid sequence which has a prescribed native protein fold. This problem arises in drug design where a particular structure is necessary to ensure proper protein-protein interactions. The input to the inverse protein folding problem is a shape and the goal is to design a protein sequence with a unique native fold that closely approximates the input shape. Gupta et al. 1 introduced a design in the 2D HP model of Dill that can be used to approximate any given (2D) shape. They conjectured that the protein sequences of their design are stable but only proved the stability for an infinite class of very basic structures. The HP model divides amino acids to two groups: hydrophobic (H) and polar (P), and considers only hydrophobic interactions between neighboring H amino in the energy formula. Another significant force acting during the protein folding are sulfide (SS) bridges between two cysteine amino acids. In this paper, we will enrich the HP model by adding cysteines as the third group of amino acids. A cysteine monomer acts as an H amino acid, but in addition two neighboring cysteines can form a bridge to further reduce the energy of the fold. We call our model the HPC model. We consider a subclass of linear structures
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".