Systematic identification of conditionally folded intrinsically disordered regions by AlphaFold2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AlphaFold Protein Structure Database contains predicted structures for millions of proteins. For the majority of human proteins that contain intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), which do not adopt a stable structure, it is generally assumed that these regions have low AlphaFold2 confidence scores that reflect low-confidence structural predictions. Here, we show that AlphaFold2 assigns confident structures to nearly 15% of human IDRs. By comparison to experimental NMR data for a subset of IDRs that are known to conditionally fold (i.e., upon binding or under other specific conditions), we find that AlphaFold2 often predicts the structure of the conditionally folded state. Based on databases of IDRs that are known to conditionally fold, we estimate that AlphaFold2 can identify conditionally folding IDRs at a precision as high as 88% at a 10% false positive rate, which is remarkable considering that conditionally folded IDR structures were minimally represented in its training data. We find that human disease mutations are nearly fivefold enriched in conditionally folded IDRs over IDRs in general and that up to 80% of IDRs in prokaryotes are predicted to conditionally fold, compared to less than 20% of eukaryotic IDRs. These results indicate that a large majority of IDRs in the proteomes of human and other eukaryotes function in the absence of conditional folding, but the regions that do acquire folds are more sensitive to mutations. We emphasize that the AlphaFold2 predictions do not reveal functionally relevant structural plasticity within IDRs and cannot offer realistic ensemble representations of conditionally folded IDRs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".