Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Current approaches to contact map prediction in proteins have focused on amino acid conservation and patterns of mutation at sequentially distant positions. This sequence information is poorly understood and very little progress has been made in this area during recent years. RESULTS: In this study, an observation of 'striped' sequence patterns across beta-sheets prompted the development of a new type of contact map predictor. Computer program code was evolved with an evolutionary algorithm (genetic programming) to select residues and residue pairs likely to make contacts based solely on local sequence patterns extracted with the help of self-organizing maps. The mean prediction accuracy is 27% on a validation set of 156 domains up to 400 residues in length, where contacts are separated by at least 8 residues and length/10 pairs are predicted. The retrospective accuracy on a set of 15 CASP5 targets is 27% and 14% for length/10 and length/2 predicted pairs, respectively (both using a minimum residue separation of 24). This compares favourably to the equivalent 21% and 13% obtained for the best automated contact prediction methods at CASP5. The results suggest that protein architectures impose regularities in local sequence environments. Other sources of information, such as correlated/compensatory mutations, may further improve accuracy. AVAILABILITY: A web-based prediction service is available at http://www.sbc.su.se/~maccallr/contactmaps
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".