<scp>AlphaFold</scp> accurately predicts distinct conformations based on the oligomeric state of a de novo designed protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using the molecular modeling program Rosetta, we designed a de novo protein, called SEWN0.1, which binds the heterotrimeric G protein Gα q. The design is helical, well‐folded, and primarily monomeric in solution at a concentration of 10 μM. However, when we solved the crystal structure of SEWN0.1 at 1.9 Å, we observed a dimer in a conformation incompatible with binding Gα q . Unintentionally, we had designed a protein that adopts alternate conformations depending on its oligomeric state. Recently, there has been tremendous progress in the field of protein structure prediction as new methods in artificial intelligence have been used to predict structures with high accuracy. We were curious if the structure prediction method AlphaFold could predict the structure of SEWN0.1 and if the prediction depended on oligomeric state. When AlphaFold was used to predict the structure of monomeric SEWN0.1, it produced a model that resembles the Rosetta design model and is compatible with binding Gα q , but when used to predict the structure of a dimer, it predicted a conformation that closely resembles the SEWN0.1 crystal structure. AlphaFold's ability to predict multiple conformations for a single protein sequence should be useful for engineering protein switches.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".