The difficulty of aligning intrinsically disordered protein sequences as assessed by conservation and phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are proteins that lack a stable 3D structure but maintain a biological function. It has been frequently suggested that IDPs are difficult to align because they tend to have fewer conserved residues compared to ordered proteins, but to our knowledge this has never been directly tested. To compare the alignments of ordered proteins to IDPs, their multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) were assessed using two different methods. The first compared the similarity between MSAs produced using the same sequences but created with Clustal Omega, MAFFT, and MUSCLE. The second assessed MSAs based on how well they recapitulated the species tree. These two methods measure the "correctness" of an MSA with two different approaches; the first method measures consistency while the second measures the underlying phylogenetic signal. Proteins that contained both regions of disorder and order were analyzed along with proteins that were fully disordered and fully ordered, using nucleotide, codon and peptide sequence alignments. We observed that IDPs had less similar MSAs than ordered proteins, which is most likely linked to the lower sequence conservation in IDPs. However, comparisons of tree distances found that trees from the ordered sequence MSAs were not significantly closer to the species tree than those inferred from disordered sequence MSAs. Our results show that it is correct to say that IDPs are difficult to align on the basis of MSA consistency, but that this does not equate with alignments being of poor quality when assessed by their ability to correctly infer a species tree.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".