Petabase-Scale Homology Search for Structure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent CASP15 competition highlighted the critical role of multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) in protein structure prediction, as demonstrated by the success of the top AlphaFold2-based prediction methods. To push the boundaries of MSA utilization, we conducted a petabase-scale search of the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), resulting in gigabytes of aligned homologs for CASP15 targets. These were merged with default MSAs produced by ColabFold-search and provided to ColabFold-predict. By using SRA data, we achieved highly accurate predictions (GDT_TS > 70) for 66% of the non-easy targets, whereas using ColabFold-search default MSAs scored highly in only 52%. Next, we tested the effect of deep homology search and ColabFold's advanced features, such as more recycles, on prediction accuracy. While SRA homologs were most significant for improving ColabFold's CASP15 ranking from 11th to 3rd place, other strategies contributed too. We analyze these in the context of existing strategies to improve prediction.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".