Protein structures as shapes: Analysing protein structure variation using geometric morphometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A phenotype is defined as an organism’s physical traits. In the macroscopic world, an animal’s shape is a phenotype. Geometric morphometrics (GM) can be used to analyze its shape. Let’s pose protein structures as microscopic three dimensional shapes, and apply principles of GM to the analysis of macromolecules. In this paper we introduce a way to 1) abstract a structure as a shape; 2) align the shapes; and 3) perform statistical analysis to establish patterns of variation in the datasets. We show that general procrustes superimposition (GPS) can be replaced by multiple structure alignment without changing the outcome of the test. We also show that estimating the deformation of the shape (structure) can be informative to analyze relative residue variations. Finally, we show an application of GM for two protein structure datasets: 1) in the α -amylase dataset we demonstrate the relationship between structure, function, and how the dependency of chloride has an important effect on the structure; and 2) in the Niemann-Pick disease, type C1 (NPC1) protein’s molecular dynamic simulation dataset, we introduce a simple way to analyze the trajectory of the simulation by means of protein structure variation.
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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".