PED in 2021: a major update of the protein ensemble database for intrinsically disordered proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Protein Ensemble Database (PED) (https://proteinensemble.org), which holds structural ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), has been significantly updated and upgraded since its last release in 2016. The new version, PED 4.0, has been completely redesigned and reimplemented with cutting-edge technology and now holds about six times more data (162 versus 24 entries and 242 versus 60 structural ensembles) and a broader representation of state of the art ensemble generation methods than the previous version. The database has a completely renewed graphical interface with an interactive feature viewer for region-based annotations, and provides a series of descriptors of the qualitative and quantitative properties of the ensembles. High quality of the data is guaranteed by a new submission process, which combines both automatic and manual evaluation steps. A team of biocurators integrate structured metadata describing the ensemble generation methodology, experimental constraints and conditions. A new search engine allows the user to build advanced queries and search all entry fields including cross-references to IDP-related resources such as DisProt, MobiDB, BMRB and SASBDB. We expect that the renewed PED will be useful for researchers interested in the atomic-level understanding of IDP function, and promote the rational, structure-based design of IDP-targeting drugs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
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".