Effects of Sequence Composition and Patterning on the Structure and Dynamics of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unlike the well defined structures of classical natively folded proteins, Intrinsically Disordered Proteins (IDP) and Intrinsically Disordered Regions (IDR) dynamically span large conformational and structural ensembles. This dynamic disorder impedes the study of the relationship between the amino acid sequences of the IDPs and their spatial structures, dynamics, and function. Multiple experimental and theoretical evidence points in many cases to the overall importance of the general properties of the amino acid sequence of the IPDs rather than their precise atomistic details. However, while different experimental techniques can probe aspects of the IDP conformations, often different techniques or conditions offer seemingly contradictory results. Using coarse-grained polymer models informed by experimental observations, we investigate the effects of several key variables on the dimensions and the dynamics of IDPs. The coarse-grained simulations are in a good agreement with the results of atomistic MD. We show that the sequence composition and patterning are well reflected in the global conformational variables such as the radius of gyration and hydrodynamic radius, while the end-to-end distance and dynamics are highly sequence specific. We identify the conditions that allow mapping of highly heterogeneous sequences of IDPs onto averaged minimal polymer models. We discuss the implications of these results for the interpretation of the recent experimental measurements, and for further development of appropriate mesoscopic models of IDPs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".