Synergetic Effects of Alanine and Glycine in Blob-Based Methods for Predicting Protein Folding Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polypeptide PGlyAlaGlu was prepared with 20 mol % glycine (Gly), 36 mol % d, l -alanine (Ala), and 44 mol % d, l -glutamic acid (Glu) and labeled with the dye 1-pyrenemethylamine to yield a series of Py-PGlyAlaGlu samples. The fluorescence decays of the Py-PGlyAlaGlu samples were analyzed according to the fluorescence blob model (FBM) to obtain the number N blob exp of amino acids (aa’s) encompassed inside the subvolume V blob of the polypeptide probed by an excited pyrene. An N blob exp value of 29 (±2) was retrieved for Py-PGlyAlaGlu, which was much larger than for any of the copolypeptide PGlyGlu or PAlaGlu prepared with either Gly and Glu or Ala and Glu, respectively. The continuous increase in N blob exp with decreasing side chain size (SCS) from 10 aa’s for PGlu to 16 aa’s for PAlaGlu and 22 aa’s for PGlyGlu was used earlier to define the reach of an aa and determine the groups of aa’s that could interact with each other along a polypeptide backbone according to their SCS. These groups of aa’s, referred to as blobs, led to the implementation of blob-based models (BBM) to predict the folding time τ F theo,BBM of 145 proteins, which was found to match their experimental folding time τ F exp with a relatively high 0.71 correlation coefficient. Nevertheless, the much higher N blob exp value found for Py-PGlyAlaGlu compared to all other pyrene-labeled polypeptides studied to date indicates that the reach of aa’s along a polypeptide sequence is affected not only by SCS but also by synergetic effects between different aa’s. Following this new insight, a revised BBM was implemented to predict τ F theo,BBM for 195 proteins assuming the existence or absence of synergies to control the interactions between aa’s along a polypeptide sequence. Similarly good correlation coefficients of 0.71 and 0.74 were obtained for a direct 1:1 comparison of τ F exp and τ F theo,BBM for the 195 proteins without and with synergies, respectively. This result suggests that synergetic effects between different aa’s have little effect on τ F theo,BBM predicted from BBM underlying the robustness of this methodology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".