Learning to evolve structural ensembles of unfolded and disordered proteins using experimental solution data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural characterization of proteins with a disorder requires a computational approach backed by experiments to model their diverse and dynamic structural ensembles. The selection of conformational ensembles consistent with solution experiments of disordered proteins highly depends on the initial pool of conformers, with currently available tools limited by conformational sampling. We have developed a Generative Recurrent Neural Network (GRNN) that uses supervised learning to bias the probability distributions of torsions to take advantage of experimental data types such as nuclear magnetic resonance J-couplings, nuclear Overhauser effects, and paramagnetic resonance enhancements. We show that updating the generative model parameters according to the reward feedback on the basis of the agreement between experimental data and probabilistic selection of torsions from learned distributions provides an alternative to existing approaches that simply reweight conformers of a static structural pool for disordered proteins. Instead, the biased GRNN, DynamICE, learns to physically change the conformations of the underlying pool of the disordered protein to those that better agree with experiments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".