Distance-based metrics for comparing conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are proteins whose native functional states represent ensembles of highly diverse conformations. Such ensembles are a challenge for quantitative structure comparisons as their conformational diversity precludes optimal superimposition of the atomic coordinates, necessary for deriving common similarity measures such as the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of these coordinates. Here we introduce superimposition-free metrics, which are based on computing matrices of Cα-Cα distance distributions within ensembles and comparing these matrices between ensembles. Differences between two matrices yield information on the similarity between specific regions of the polypeptide, whereas the global structural similarity is captured by the ens_dRMS, defined as the root-mean-square difference between the medians of the Cα-Cαdistance distributions of two ensembles. Together, our metrics enable rigorous investigations of structure-function relationships in conformational ensembles of IDPs derived using experimental restraints or by molecular simulations, and for proteins containing both structured and disordered regions. Statement of Significance Important biological insight is obtained from comparing the high-resolution structures of proteins. Such comparisons commonly involve superimposing two protein structures and computing the residual root-mean-square deviation of the atomic positions. This approach cannot be applied to intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) because IDPs do not adopt well-defined 3D structures, rather, their native functional state is defined by ensembles of heterogeneous conformations that cannot be meaningfully superimposed. We report new measures that quantify the local and global similarity between different conformational ensembles by evaluating differences between the distributions of residue-residue distances and their statistical significance. Applying these measures to IDP ensembles and to a protein containing both structured and intrinsically disordered domains provides deeper insights into how structural features relate to function.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".