Structural Protein Descriptors in 1-Dimension and their Sequence-Based Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last few decades observed an increasing interest in development and application of 1-dimensional (1D) descriptors of protein structure. These descriptors project 3D structural features onto 1D strings of residue-wise structural assignments. They cover a wide-range of structural aspects including conformation of the backbone, burying depth/solvent exposure and flexibility of residues, and inter-chain residue-residue contacts. We perform first-of-its-kind comprehensive comparative review of the existing 1D structural descriptors. We define, review and categorize ten structural descriptors and we also describe, summarize and contrast over eighty computational models that are used to predict these descriptors from the protein sequences. We show that the majority of the recent sequence-based predictors utilize machine learning models, with the most popular being neural networks, support vector machines, hidden Markov models, and support vector and linear regressions. These methods provide high-throughput predictions and most of them are accessible to a non-expert user via web servers and/or stand-alone software packages. We empirically evaluate several recent sequence-based predictors of secondary structure, disorder, and solvent accessibility descriptors using a benchmark set based on CASP8 targets. Our analysis shows that the secondary structure can be predicted with over 80% accuracy and segment overlap (SOV), disorder with over 0.9 AUC, 0.6 Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and 75% SOV, and relative solvent accessibility with PCC of 0.7 and MCC of 0.6 (0.86 when homology is used). We demonstrate that the secondary structure predicted from sequence without the use of homology modeling is as good as the structure extracted from the 3D folds predicted by top-performing template-based methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".