Protein folding: Defining a “standard” set of experimental conditions and a preliminary kinetic data set of two‐state proteins
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
Recent years have seen the publication of both empirical and theoretical relationships predicting the rates with which proteins fold. Our ability to test and refine these relationships has been limited, however, by a variety of difficulties associated with the comparison of folding and unfolding rates, thermodynamics, and structure across diverse sets of proteins. These difficulties include the wide, potentially confounding range of experimental conditions and methods employed to date and the difficulty of obtaining correct and complete sequence and structural details for the characterized constructs. The lack of a single approach to data analysis and error estimation, or even of a common set of units and reporting standards, further hinders comparative studies of folding. In an effort to overcome these problems, we define here a "consensus" set of experimental conditions (25 degrees C at pH 7.0, 50 mM buffer), data analysis methods, and data reporting standards that we hope will provide a benchmark for experimental studies. We take the first step in this initiative by describing the folding kinetics of 30 apparently two-state proteins or protein domains under the consensus conditions. The goal of our efforts is to set uniform standards for the experimental community and to initiate an accumulating, self-consistent data set that will aid ongoing efforts to understand the folding process.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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