Configurational Entropy of Folded Proteins and its Importance for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many pairwise additive force fields are in active use for intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and regions (IDRs), some of which modify energetic terms to improve description of IDPs/IDRs, but are largely in disagreement with solution experiments for the disordered states. We have evaluated representative pairwise and many-body protein and water force fields against experimental data on representative IDPs and IDRs, a peptide that undergoes a disorder-to-order transition, and for seven globular proteins ranging in size from 130-266 amino acids. We find that force fields with the largest statistical fluctuations consistent with the radius of gyration and universal Lindemann values for folded states simultaneously better describe IDPs and IDRs and disorder to order transitions. Hence the crux of what a force field should exhibit to well describe IDRs/IDPs is not just the balance between protein and water energetics, but the balance between energetic effects and configurational entropy of folded states of globular proteins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".