MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Protein Structure Prediction with Extended Sequence Similarity Searches and Deep-Learning-Based Refinement in CASP15

2023· preprint· en· W4366215728 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Toshiyuki Oda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsRIKENDeepMind
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceSequence (biology)Computer scienceDeep learningProtein structure predictionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Protein structureBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human predictor team PEZYFoldings got third place with GDT-TS (First place with the Assessor’s formulae) in the single-domain category and tenth place in the multimer category in CASP15. In this paper, I describe the exact method used by PEZYFoldings in competitions. As AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold-Multimer, developed by DeepMind, are state-of-the-art structure prediction tools, it was assumed that enhancing the input and output of the tools was an effective strategy to obtain the highest accuracy for structure prediction. Therefore, I used additional tools and databases to collect evolutionarily related sequences and introduced a deep-learning-based model in the refinement step. In addition to these modifications, manual interventions were performed to address various tasks. Detailed analyses were performed after the competition to identify the main contributors to performance. Comparing the number of evolutionarily related sequences I used with those of the other teams that provided AlphaFold2’s baseline predictions revealed that an extensive sequence similarity search was one of the main contributors. The impact of the refinement model was minimal (p <0.05 for the TM score). In addition, I noticed that I had gained large Z-scores with the subunits of H1137, for which I performed manual domain parsing considering the interfaces between the subunits. This finding implies that the manual intervention contributed to my performance. The prediction performance was low when I could not identify the evolutionarily related sequences. T1130 is an example; however, other teams can model better structures. Based on the discussions from the CASP15 conference, the two teams that ranked higher than PEZYFoldings had some hits for T1130. This may be because T1130 is a eukaryotic protein, whereas the additional databases used were mainly from metagenomic sequences, which primarily consist of prokaryotic proteins. These results highlight the opportunities for improvement in 1) multimer prediction, 2) building larger and more diverse databases, and 3) developing tools to predict structures from primary sequences alone. In addition, transferring the manual intervention process to automation is a future concern.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207