A critical assessment of the topomer search model of protein folding using a continuum explicit‐chain model with extensive conformational sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a series of closely related theoretical constructs termed the "topomer search model" (TSM) has been proposed for the folding mechanism of small, single-domain proteins. A basic assumption of the proposed scenarios is that the rate-limiting step in folding is an essentially unbiased, diffusive search for a conformational state called the native topomer defined by an overall native-like topological pattern. Successes in correlating TSM-predicted folding rates with that of real proteins have been interpreted as experimental support for the model. To better delineate the physics entailed, key TSM concepts are examined here using extensive Langevin dynamics simulations of continuum C(alpha) chain models. The theoretical native topomers of four experimentally well-studied two-state proteins are characterized. Consistent with the TSM perspective, we found that the sizes of the native topomers increase with experimental folding rate. However, a careful determination of the corresponding probabilities that the native topomers are populated during a random search fails to reproduce the previously predicted folding rates. Instead, our results indicate that an unbiased TSM search for the native topomer amounts to a Levinthal-like process that would take an impossibly long average time to complete. Furthermore, intraprotein contacts in all four native topomers considered exhibit no apparent correlation with the experimental phi-values determined from the folding kinetics of these proteins. Thus, the present findings suggest that certain basic, generic yet essential energetic features in protein folding are not accounted for by TSM scenarios to date.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".