Modeling Protein Complexes Using Restraints from Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling macromolecular assemblies with restraints from crosslinking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) tends to focus solely on distance violation. Recently, we identified three different modeling features inherent in crosslink data: (1) expected distance between crosslinked residues; (2) violation of the crosslinker's maximum bound; and (3) solvent accessibility of crosslinked residues. Here, we implement these features in a scoring function. cMNXL, and demonstrate that it outperforms the commonlyused crosslink distance violation. We compare the different methods of calculating the distance between crosslinked residues, which shows no significant change in performance when using Euclidean distance compared with the solvent-accessible surface distance. Finally, we create a combined score that incorporates information from 3D electron microscopy maps as well as crosslinking. This achieves, on average, better results than either information type alone and demonstrates the potential of integrative modeling with XL-MS and low-resolution cryoelectron microscopy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".