MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220734286 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c01293

A Generalized Attraction–Repulsion Potential and Revisited Fragment Library Improves PEP-FOLD Peptide Structure Prediction

2022· article· en· W4220734286 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Binette, Normand Mousseau, Pierre Tufféry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleCompute Canada
Keywordsvan der Waals forceComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Function (biology)PhysicsFragment (logic)Statistical physicsChemistryAlgorithmMoleculeQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast and accurate structure prediction is essential to the study of peptide function, molecular targets, and interactions and has been the subject of considerable efforts in the past decade. In this work, we present improvements to the popular simplified PEP-FOLD technique for small peptide structure prediction. PEP-FOLD originality is threefold: (i) it uses a predetermined structural alphabet, (ii) it uses a sequential algorithm to reconstruct the tridimensional structures of these peptides in a discrete space using a fragment library, and (iii) it assesses the energy of these structures using a coarse-grained representation in which all of the backbone atoms but the α-hydrogen are present, and the side chain corresponds to a unique bead. In former versions of PEP-FOLD, a van der Waals formulation was used for non-bonded interactions, with each side chain being associated with a fixed radius. Here, we explore the relevance of using instead a generalized formulation in which not only the optimal distance of interaction and the energy at this distance are parameters but also the distance at which the potential is zero. This allows each side chain to be associated with a different radius and potential energy shape, depending on its interaction partner, and in principle to make more effective the coarse-grained representation. In addition, the new PEP-FOLD version is associated with an updated library of fragments. We show that these modifications lead to important improvements for many of the problematic targets identified with the former PEP-FOLD version while maintaining already correct predictions. The improvement is in terms of both model ranking and model accuracy. We also compare the PEP-FOLD enhanced version to state-of-the-art techniques for both peptide and structure predictions: APPTest, RaptorX, and AlphaFold2. We find that the new predictions are superior, in particular with respect to the prediction of small β-targets, to those of APPTest and RaptorX and bring, with its original approach, additional understanding on folded structures, even when less precise than AlphaFold2. With their strong physical influence, the revised structural library and coarse-grained potential offer, however, the means for a deeper understanding of the nature of folding and open a solid basis for studying flexibility and other dynamical properties not accessible to IA structure prediction approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207