Current status of structural studies of proteins originating from Arachnida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arthropods from class Arachnida constitute a large and diverse group with over 100,000 described species, and they are sources of many proteins that have a direct impact on human health. Despite the importance of Arachnida, few proteins originating from these organisms have been characterized in terms of their structure. Here we present a detailed analysis of Arachnida proteins that have their experimental structures determined and deposited to the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Our results indicate that proteins represented in the PDB are derived from a small number of Arachnida families, and two-thirds of Arachnida proteins with experimental structures determined are derived from organisms belonging to Buthidae, Ixodidae, and Theraphosidae families. Moreover, 90% of the deposits come from just a dozen of Arachnida families, and almost half of the deposits represent proteins originating from only fifteen different species. In summary, our analysis shows that the structural analysis of proteins originating from Arachnida is not only limited to a small number of the source species, but also proteins from this group of animals are not extensively studied. However, the interest in Arachnida proteins seems to be increasing, which is reflected by a significant increase in the related PDB deposits during the last ten years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".