MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899572362 · doi:10.3233/fi-2018-1750

Approximation Algorithms for Three Dimensional Protein Folding

2018· article· en· W2899572362 on OpenAlexaff
Dipan Shaw, A. S. M. Shohidull Islam, Shuvasish Karmaker, M. Sohel Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexagonal prismLattice (music)AlgorithmDiagonalProtein structure predictionCrystal structureLattice proteinHexagonal latticeProtein structureProtein foldingProtein secondary structureHexagonal crystal systemMathematicsComputer scienceCombinatoricsCrystallographyPhysicsGeometryChemistryCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the secondary structure of a protein using a lattice model is one of the most studied computational problems in bioinformatics. Here the secondary structure or three dimensional structure of a protein is predicted from its amino acid sequence. The secondary structure refers to the local sub-structures of a protein. Simplified energy models have been proposed in the literature on the basis of interaction of amino acid residues in proteins. We focus on a well researched model known as the Hydrophobic-Polar (HP) energy model. In this paper, we propose the hexagonal prism lattice with diagonals that can overcome the problems of other lattice structures, e.g., parity problem. We give two approximation algorithms for protein folding on this lattice using HP model. Our first algorithm leads us to a similar structure of helix structure that is commonly found in a protein structure. This motivates us to propose the next algorithm with a better approximation ratio. Finally, we analyze the algorithms on the basis of intensity of the chemical forces along the different types of edges of hexagonal prism lattice with diagonals.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207