AlphaFold2: A Role for Disordered Protein/Region Prediction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of AlphaFold2 marked a paradigm-shift in the structural biology community. Herein, we assess the ability of AlphaFold2 to predict disordered regions against traditional sequence-based disorder predictors. We find that AlphaFold2 performs well at discriminating disordered regions, but also note that the disorder predictor one constructs from an AlphaFold2 structure determines accuracy. In particular, a naïve, but non-trivial assumption that residues assigned to helices, strands, and H-bond stabilized turns are likely ordered and all other residues are disordered results in a dramatic overestimation in disorder; conversely, the predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) provides an excellent measure of residue-wise disorder. Furthermore, by employing molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, we note an interesting relationship between the pLDDT and secondary structure, that may explain our observations and suggests a broader application of the pLDDT for characterizing the local dynamics of intrinsically disordered proteins and regions (IDPs/IDRs).
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".