Automated design evolution of stereochemically randomized protein foldamers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversification of chain stereochemistry opens up the possibilities of an 'in principle' increase in the design space of proteins. This huge increase in the sequence and consequent structural variation is aimed at the generation of smart materials. To diversify protein structure stereochemically, we introduced L- and D-α-amino acids as the design alphabet. With a sequence design algorithm, we explored the usage of specific variables such as chirality and the sequence of this alphabet in independent steps. With molecular dynamics, we folded stereochemically diverse homopolypeptides and evaluated their 'fitness' for possible design as protein-like foldamers. We propose a fitness function to prune the most optimal fold among 1000 structures simulated with an automated repetitive simulated annealing molecular dynamics (AR-SAMD) approach. The highly scored poly-leucine fold with sequence lengths of 24 and 30 amino acids were later sequence-optimized using a Dead End Elimination cum Monte Carlo based optimization tool. This paper demonstrates a novel approach for the de novo design of protein-like foldamers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".