Protein Dynamics to Define and Refine Disordered Protein Ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsically disordered proteins and unfolded proteins have fluctuating conformational ensembles that are fundamental to their biological function and impact protein folding, stability, and misfolding. Despite the importance of protein dynamics and conformational sampling, time-dependent data types are not fully exploited when defining and refining disordered protein ensembles. Here we introduce a computational framework using an elastic network model and normal-mode displacements to generate a dynamic disordered ensemble consistent with NMR-derived dynamics parameters, including transverse R 2 relaxation rates and Lipari–Szabo order parameters ( S 2 values). We illustrate our approach using the unfolded state of the drkN SH3 domain to show that the dynamical ensembles give better agreement than a static ensemble for a wide range of experimental validation data including NMR chemical shifts, J -couplings, nuclear Overhauser effects, paramagnetic relaxation enhancements, residual dipolar couplings, hydrodynamic radii, single-molecule fluorescence Förster resonance energy transfer, and small-angle X-ray scattering.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".