Researcher profile

Alex T. Grigas

Alex T. Grigas contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Assessment of scoring functions for computational models of protein-protein interfaces

A goal of computational studies of protein-protein interfaces (PPIs) is to predict the binding site between two monomers that form a heterodimer. The simplest version of this problem is to rigidly re-dock the bound forms of the monomers, which involves generating computational models of the heterodimer and then scoring them to determine the most native-like models. Scoring functions have been assessed previously using rank- and classification-based metrics, however, these methods are sensitive to the number and quality of models in the scoring function training set. We assess the accuracy of seven PPI scoring functions by comparing their scores to a measure of structural similarity to the x-ray crystal structure (i.e. the DockQ score) for a non-redundant set of heterodimers from the Protein Data Bank. For each heterodimer, we generate re-docked models uniformly sampled over DockQ and calculate the Spearman correlation between the PPI scores and DockQ. For some targets, the scores and DockQ are highly correlated; however, for many targets, there are weak correlations. Several physical features can explain the difference between difficult- and easy-to-score targets. For example, strong correlations exist between the score and DockQ for targets with highly intertwined monomers and many interface contacts. We also develop a new score based on only three physical features that matches or exceeds the performance of current PPI scoring functions. These results emphasize that PPI prediction can be improved by focusing on correlations between the PPI score and DockQ and incorporating more discriminating physical features into PPI scoring functions.

preprint2020arXiv

Using physical features of protein core packing to distinguish real proteins from decoys

The ability to consistently distinguish real protein structures from computationally generated model decoys is not yet a solved problem. One route to distinguish real protein structures from decoys is to delineate the important physical features that specify a real protein. For example, it has long been appreciated that the hydrophobic cores of proteins contribute significantly to their stability. As a dataset of decoys to compare with real protein structures, we studied submissions to the bi-annual CASP competition (specifically CASP11, 12, and 13), in which researchers attempt to predict the structure of a protein only knowing its amino acid sequence. Our analysis reveals that many of the submissions possess cores that do not recapitulate the features that define real proteins. In particular, the model structures appear more densely packed (because of energetically unfavorable atomic overlaps), contain too few residues in the core, and have improper distributions of hydrophobic residues throughout the structure. Based on these observations, we developed a deep learning method, which incorporates key physical features of protein cores, to predict how well a computational model recapitulates the real protein structure without knowledge of the structure of the target sequence. By identifying the important features of protein structure, our method is able to rank decoys from the CASP competitions equally well, if not better than, state-of-the-art methods that incorporate many additional features.

preprint2019arXiv

Analyses of protein cores reveal fundamental differences between solution and crystal structures

There have been several studies suggesting that protein structures solved by NMR spectroscopy and x-ray crystallography show significant differences. To understand the origin of these differences, we assembled a database of high-quality protein structures solved by both methods. We also find significant differences between NMR and crystal structures---in the root-mean-square deviations of the C$_α$ atomic positions, identities of core amino acids, backbone and sidechain dihedral angles, and packing fraction of core residues. In contrast to prior studies, we identify the physical basis for these differences by modelling protein cores as jammed packings of amino-acid-shaped particles. We find that we can tune the jammed packing fraction by varying the degree of thermalization used to generate the packings. For an athermal protocol, we find that the average jammed packing fraction is identical to that observed in the cores of protein structures solved by x-ray crystallography. In contrast, highly thermalized packing-generation protocols yield jammed packing fractions that are even higher than those observed in NMR structures. These results indicate that thermalized systems can pack more densely than athermal systems, which suggests a physical basis for the structural differences between protein structures solved by NMR and x-ray crystallography.