Towards Reliable Automatic Protein Structure Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of methods have been proposed for structure similarity calculation, which are called structure alignment or superposition. One major shortcoming in current structure alignment algorithms is in their inherent design, which is based on local structure similarity. In this work, we propose a method to incorporate global information in obtaining optimal alignments and superpositions. Our method, when applied to optimizing the TM-score and the GDT score, produces significantly better results than current state-of-the-art protein structure alignment tools. Specifically, if the highest TM-score found by TMalign is lower than (0.6) and the highest TM-score found by one of the tested methods is higher than (0.5), there is a probability of (42%) that TMalign failed to find TM-scores higher than (0.5), while the same probability is reduced to (2%) if our method is used. This could significantly improve the accuracy of fold detection if the cutoff TM-score of (0.5) is used. In addition, existing structure alignment algorithms focus on structure similarity alone and simply ignore other important similarities, such as sequence similarity. Our approach has the capacity to incorporate multiple similarities into the scoring function. Results show that sequence similarity aids in finding high quality protein structure alignments that are more consistent with eye-examined alignments in HOMSTRAD. Even when structure similarity itself fails to find alignments with any consistency with eye-examined alignments, our method remains capable of finding alignments highly similar to, or even identical to, eye-examined alignments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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".