Amelie Schreiber

AmelieSchreiber

AI & ML interests

Diffusion and flow matching models for proteins, small molecules, DNA, and RNA, protein language models, machine translation, equivariant attention mechanisms, LoRA, and QLoRA.

Organizations

Blog-explorers's profile picture Social Post Explorers's profile picture

AmelieSchreiber's activity

replied to their post 4 months ago
replied to their post 4 months ago
replied to their post about 1 year ago
view reply

It was unexpected. I believe finetuning may be in order and EvoDiff is not really intended to generate binders out-of-the-box anyway. Still though, the changes in tertiary structure for the generated protein are puzzling and interesting. How does an alpha-helix with an some higher pLDDT scores (middle picture of the unbound generated binder) turn into beta-sheets with low pLDDT scores in the presence of the target protein (picture on the right)? I find that strange and interesting. Is this a more extreme example of sampling multiple conformations of proteins that are fold-switching? (see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.16.571997v1)

posted an update about 1 year ago
view post
Post
Currently attempting to hack EvoDiff to generate binders for target proteins with some interesting results. The generated binders tend to change conformation, sometimes drastically, when bound to the target proteins compared to their unbound states. Below is the target protein with an IDR linker, the generated binder, and the binder bound to the target protein with the IDR linker structure as predicted by ESMFold. Notice how the binder goes from being a solid alpha-helix, to being beta-sheets (in orange). That's quite a change in tertiary structure!
  • 3 replies
ยท