Improving conformational ensembles of folded proteins in GōMartini
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Martini coarse-grained (CG) force field enables efficient simulations of biomolecular systems but cannot reliably maintain folded protein structures. To stabilize proteins during simulation, Martini is typically combined with structure-based force fields such as elastic network models (ENMs) or Gō models. While these approaches preserve global folds and capture protein flexibility, their ability to reproduce conformational dynamics remains unclear. Here, we benchmark Martini combined with ENMs or Gō models on three folded proteins and show that both approaches struggle to sample the conformational space observed in atomistic simulations, even when uniform interaction strengths or equilibrium bond distances are adjusted. This limitation arises from the assumption of a uniform interaction network, in which all bond energies are equal. To overcome this, we present a fully automated, perturbation-based optimization approach for Gō networks, PoGō , that iteratively refines a non-uniform Gō network against a pre-computed atomistic free energy landscape in essential conformational space. Our approach converges rapidly, yielding CG ensembles in close agreement with reference atomistic simulations. As a cross-validation, the optimization also improves the root-mean-square fluctuation profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".