AlphaFold2 transmembrane protein structure prediction shines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transmembrane (TM) proteins are major drug targets, indicated by the high percentage of prescription drugs acting on them. For a rational drug design and an understanding of mutational effects on protein function, structural data at atomic resolution are required. However, hydrophobic TM proteins often resist experimental structure determination and in spite of the increasing number of cryo-EM structures, the available TM folds are still limited in the Protein Data Bank. Recently, the DeepMind’s AlphaFold2 machine learning method greatly expanded the structural coverage of sequences, with high accuracy. Since the employed algorithm did not take specific properties of TM proteins into account, the validity of the generated TM structures should be assessed. Therefore, we investigated the quality of structures at genome scales, at the level of ABC protein superfamily folds, and also in specific individual cases. We tested template-free structure prediction also with a new TM fold, dimer modeling, and stability in molecular dynamics simulations. Our results strongly suggest that AlphaFold2 performs astoundingly well in the case of TM proteins and that its neural network is not overfitted. We conclude that a careful application of its structural models will advance TM protein associated studies at an unexpected level.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".