MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392345053 · doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2024.108073

Deep generative priors for biomolecular 3D heterogeneous reconstruction from cryo-EM projections

2024· article· en· W4392345053 on OpenAlexafffund
Bin Shi, Kevin Zhang, David J. Fleet, Robert A. McLeod, R. J. Dwayne Miller, Jane Y. Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHitachi (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationCompute Canada
KeywordsPrior probabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInferenceLatent variablePattern recognition (psychology)Bayes' theoremPairwise comparisonBayesian probabilityAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryo-electron microscopy has become a powerful tool to determine three-dimensional (3D) structures of rigid biological macromolecules from noisy micrographs with single-particle reconstruction. Recently, deep neural networks, e.g., CryoDRGN, have demonstrated conformational and compositional heterogeneity of complexes. However, the lack of ground-truth conformations poses a challenge to assess the performance of heterogeneity analysis methods. In this work, variational autoencoders (VAE) with three types of deep generative priors were learned for latent variable inference and heterogeneous 3D reconstruction via Bayesian inference. More specifically, VAEs with "Variational Mixture of Posteriors" priors (VampPrior-SPR), non-parametric exemplar-based priors (ExemplarPrior-SPR) and priors from latent score-based generative models (LSGM-SPR) were quantitatively compared with CryoDRGN. We built four simulated datasets composed of hypothetical continuous conformation or discrete states of the hERG K + channel. Empirical and quantitative comparisons of inferred latent representations were performed with affine-transformation-based metrics. These models with more informative priors gave better regularized, interpretable factorized latent representations with better conserved pairwise distances, less deformed latent distributions and lower within-cluster variances. They were also tested on experimental datasets to resolve compositional and conformational heterogeneity (50S ribosome assembly, cowpea chlorotic mottle virus, and pre-catalytic spliceosome) with comparable high resolution. Codes and data are available: https://github.com/benjamin3344/DGP-SPR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural BiologySame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207