Statistically Based Reduced Representation of Amino Acid Side Chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preferred conformations of amino acid side chains have been well established through statistically obtained rotamer libraries. Typically, these provide bond torsion angles allowing a side chain to be traced atom by atom. In cases where it is desirable to reduce the complexity of a protein representation or prediction, fixing all side-chain atoms may prove unwieldy. Therefore, we introduce a general parametrization to allow positions of representative atoms (in the present study, these are terminal atoms) to be predicted directly given backbone atom coordinates. Using a large, culled data set of amino acid residues from high-resolution protein crystal structures, anywhere from 1 to 7 preferred conformations were observed for each terminal atom of the non-glycine residues. Side-chain length from the backbone C(alpha) is one of the parameters determined for each conformation, which should itself be useful. Prediction of terminal atoms was then carried out for a second, nonredundant set of protein structures to validate the data set. Using four simple probabilistic approaches, the Monte Carlo style prediction of terminal atom locations given only backbone coordinates produced an average root mean-square deviation (RMSD) of approximately 3 A from the experimentally determined terminal atom positions. With prediction using conditional probabilities based on the side-chain chi(1) rotamer, this average RMSD was improved to 1.74 A. The observed terminal atom conformations therefore provide reasonable and potentially highly accurate representations of side-chain conformation, offering a viable alternative to existing all-atom rotamers for any case where reduction in protein model complexity, or in the amount of data to be handled, is desired. One application of this representation with strong potential is the prediction of charge density in proteins. This would likely be especially valuable on protein surfaces, where side chains are much less likely to be fixed in single rotamers. Prediction of ensembles of structures provides a method to determine the probability density of charge and atom location; such a prediction is demonstrated graphically.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".