Accelerating Protein Folding Molecular Dynamics Using Inter-Residue Distances from Machine Learning Servers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Recently, predicting the native structures of proteins has become possible using computational molecular physics (CMP)─physics-based force fields sampled with proper statistics─but only for small proteins. Algorithms with better scaling are needed. We describe ML x MELD x MD, a molecular dynamics (MD) method that inputs residue contacts derived from machine learning (ML) servers into MELD, a Bayesian accelerator that preserves detailed-balance statistics. Contacts are derived from trRosetta-predicted distance histograms (distograms) and are integrated into MELD’s atomistic MD as spatial restraints through parametrized potential functions. In the CASP14 blind prediction event, ML x MELD x MD predicted 13 native structures to better than 4.5 Å error, including for 10 proteins in the range of 115–250 amino acids long. Also, the scaling of simulation time vs protein length is much better than unguided MD: t sim ∼ e 0.023 N for ML x MELD x MD vs t sim ∼ e 0.168 N for MD alone. This shows how machine learning information can be leveraged to advance physics-based modeling of proteins.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".