4.7 Article

Learning to evolve structural ensembles of unfolded and disordered proteins using experimental solution data

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 158, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0141474

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The computational approach combined with experiments is necessary to characterize the structural diversity and dynamics of proteins with a disorder. The selection of conformations consistent with solution experiments depends on the initial pool of conformers, and current tools are limited by sampling. We have developed a Generative Recurrent Neural Network (GRNN) that uses supervised learning to bias the probability distributions of torsions based on experimental data, allowing the model to physically change conformations to better match experiments.
The structural characterization of proteins with a disorder requires a computational approach backed by experiments to model their diverse and dynamic structural ensembles. The selection of conformational ensembles consistent with solution experiments of disordered proteins highly depends on the initial pool of conformers, with currently available tools limited by conformational sampling. We have developed a Generative Recurrent Neural Network (GRNN) that uses supervised learning to bias the probability distributions of torsions to take advantage of experimental data types such as nuclear magnetic resonance J-couplings, nuclear Overhauser effects, and paramagnetic resonance enhancements. We show that updating the generative model parameters according to the reward feedback on the basis of the agreement between experimental data and probabilistic selection of torsions from learned distributions provides an alternative to existing approaches that simply reweight conformers of a static structural pool for disordered proteins. Instead, the biased GRNN, DynamICE, learns to physically change the conformations of the underlying pool of the disordered protein to those that better agree with experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据