MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399031292

Perspectives on protein evolution from simple exact models.

2002· article· en· W2399031292 on OpenAlexaff
Hue Sun Chan, Erich Bornberg‐Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralityComputational biologyNeutral networkRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceRNASimple (philosophy)BiologySequence (biology)Theoretical computer scienceGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the evolution of biopolymers is important to rationalise the directed and undirected design of functional molecules. Large scale experiments or detailed computational studies are often impractical. Therefore, simple model systems, such as RNA secondary structure and lattice proteins have been adapted to study general statistical and topological features of genotype (sequence) to phenotype (structure) maps. We review findings from such models that address aspects of thermodynamic and mutational robustness, neutral evolution and recombination of proteins. We compare various modelling approaches, and discuss their generality, parameter dependency and experimental verifications of their predictions. The most striking observation is the universal emergence of neutral nets--sets of phenotypically identical genotypes that are interconnected by series of point mutations. However, fast adaptation by point mutations appears to be problematic for proteins. This may explain why proteins appear to be more specific while RNA is rather versatile. This could even be the reason why RNA had to evolve before proteins. Similar principles of biological organisation are reflected in sequence and structure databases of real proteins. Insights gained from modelling are useful for designing more efficient database organisation and search strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207