On the use of direct-coupling analysis with a reduced alphabet of amino acids combined with super-secondary structure motifs for protein fold prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct-coupling analysis (DCA) for studying the coevolution of residues in proteins has been widely used to predict the three-dimensional structure of a protein from its sequence. We present RADI/raDIMod, a variation of the original DCA algorithm that groups chemically equivalent residues combined with super-secondary structure motifs to model protein structures. Interestingly, the simplification produced by grouping amino acids into only two groups (polar and non-polar) is still representative of the physicochemical nature that characterizes the protein structure and it is in line with the role of hydrophobic forces in protein-folding funneling. As a result of a compressed alphabet, the number of sequences required for the multiple sequence alignment is reduced. The number of long-range contacts predicted is limited; therefore, our approach requires the use of neighboring sequence-positions. We use the prediction of secondary structure and motifs of super-secondary structures to predict local contacts. We use RADI and raDIMod, a fragment-based protein structure modelling, achieving near native conformations when the number of super-secondary motifs covers >30-50% of the sequence. Interestingly, although different contacts are predicted with different alphabets, they produce similar structures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".