Quantifying Evolutionary Importance of Protein Sites: A Tale of Two Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A key challenge in evolutionary biology is the accurate quantification of selective pressure on proteins and other biological macromolecules at single-site resolution. The evolutionary importance of a protein site under purifying selection is typically measured by the degree of conservation of the protein site itself. A possible alternative measure is the strength of the site-induced conservation gradient in the rest of the protein structure. However, the quantitative relationship between these two measures remains unknown. Here, we show that despite major differences, there is a strong linear relationship between the two measures such that more conserved protein sites also induce stronger conservation gradient in the rest of the protein. This linear relationship is universal as it holds for different types of proteins and functional sites in proteins. Our results show that the strong selective pressure acting on the functional site in general percolates through the rest of the protein via residue-residue contacts. Surprisingly however, catalytic sites in enzymes are the principal exception to this rule. Catalytic sites induce significantly stronger conservation gradients in the rest of the protein than expected from the degree of conservation of the site alone. The unique requirement for the active site to selectively stabilize the transition state of the catalyzed chemical reaction imposes additional selective constraints on the rest of the enzyme.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".