MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413293782 · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103134

Functional sub-states link conformational landscapes and protein evolution

2025· review· en· W4413293782 on OpenAlexafffund
Morito Sakuma, Karol Buda, H. Adrian Bunzel, Christopher Fröhlich, Nobuhiko Tokuriki

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Structural Biology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceHelse Nord RHFSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungFederation of European Biochemical SocietiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversitetet i TromsøFederation of European Microbiological SocietiesHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsLink (geometry)Computational biologyChemistryEvolutionary biologyBiologyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intrinsic conformational flexibility of proteins creates structural heterogeneity, giving rise to conformational ensembles within the energy landscape. When conformational ensembles harbor distinct functional sub-states, mutations can reshape the conformational landscape, thereby altering the distribution of functional sub-states and driving the evolution of novel functions. In this review, we provide a conceptual framework that elucidates the importance of functional sub-states and how evolution can select them. We highlight key studies that have uncovered functional sub-states and discuss recent insights into the transitions of functional sub-states during evolutionary trajectories. Finally, we outline critical techniques for studying functional sub-states, address the challenges faced in analyzing these sub-states, and explore future advancements in the field of protein evolution.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Structural BiologySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207