Integrative Structural Biology in the Era of Accurate Structure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the three-dimensional structure of macromolecules is central to understanding their function. Traditionally, structures of proteins and their complexes have been determined using experimental techniques such as X-ray crystallography, NMR, or cryo-electron microscopy-applied individually or in an integrative manner. Meanwhile, however, computational methods for protein structure prediction have been improving their accuracy, gradually, then suddenly, with the breakthrough advance by AlphaFold2, whose models of monomeric proteins are often as accurate as experimental structures. This breakthrough foreshadows a new era of computational methods that can build accurate models for most monomeric proteins. Here, we envision how such accurate modeling methods can combine with experimental structural biology techniques, enhancing integrative structural biology. We highlight the challenges that arise when considering multiple structural conformations, protein complexes, and polymorphic assemblies. These challenges will motivate further developments, both in modeling programs and in methods to solve experimental structures, towards better and quicker investigation of structure-function relationships.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".