Tuning intrinsic disorder predictors for virus proteins
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many virus-encoded proteins have intrinsically disordered regions that lack a stable, folded three-dimensional structure. These disordered proteins often play important functional roles in virus replication, such as down-regulating host defense mechanisms. With the widespread availability of next-generation sequencing, the number of new virus genomes with predicted open reading frames is rapidly outpacing our capacity for directly characterizing protein structures through crystallography. Hence, computational methods for structural prediction play an important role. A large number of predictors focus on the problem of classifying residues into ordered and disordered regions, and these methods tend to be validated on a diverse training set of proteins from eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and viruses. In this study, we investigate whether some predictors outperform others in the context of virus proteins and compared our findings with data from non-viral proteins. We evaluate the prediction accuracy of 21 methods, many of which are only available as web applications, on a curated set of 126 proteins encoded by viruses. Furthermore, we apply a random forest classifier to these predictor outputs. Based on cross-validation experiments, this ensemble approach confers a substantial improvement in accuracy, e.g., a mean 36 per cent gain in Matthews correlation coefficient. Lastly, we apply the random forest predictor to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ORF6, an accessory gene that encodes a short (61 AA) and moderately disordered protein that inhibits the host innate immune response. We show that disorder prediction methods perform differently for viral and non-viral proteins, and that an ensemble approach can yield more robust and accurate predictions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it