Predicting changes in protein stability caused by mutation using sequence‐and structure‐based methods in a CAGI5 blind challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the impact of mutations on proteins remains an important problem. As part of the CAGI5 frataxin challenge, we evaluate the accuracy with which Provean, FoldX, and ELASPIC can predict changes in the Gibbs free energy of a protein using a limited data set of eight mutations. We find that different methods have distinct strengths and limitations, with no method being strictly superior to other methods on all metrics. ELASPIC achieves the highest accuracy while also providing a web interface which simplifies the evaluation and analysis of mutations. FoldX is slightly less accurate than ELASPIC but is easier to run locally, as it does not depend on external tools or datasets. Provean achieves reasonable results while being computational less expensive than the other methods and not requiring a structure of the protein. In addition to methods submitted to the CAGI5 community experiment, and with the aim to inform about other methods with high accuracy, we also evaluate predictions made by Rosetta's ddg_monomer protocol, Rosetta's cartesian_ddg protocol, and thermodynamic integration calculations using Amber package. ELASPIC still achieves the highest accuracy, while Rosetta's catesian_ddg protocol appears to perform best in capturing the overall trend in the data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".