{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020887728459530026, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026109660574412533, 'mean_word_length': 5.96969696969697, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Restriction versus guidance in protein structure prediction

Conformational restriction by fragment assembly and guidance in molecular dynamics are alternate conformational search strategies in protein structure prediction. We examine both approaches using a version of the associative memory Hamiltonian that incorporates the influence of water-mediated interactions (AMW). For short proteins (<70 residues), fragment assembly, while searching a restricted space, compares well to molecular dynamics and is often sufficient to fold such proteins to near-native conformations (4Å) via simulated annealing. Longer proteins encounter kinetic sampling limitations in fragment assembly not seen in molecular dynamics which generally samples more native-like conformations. We also present a fragment enriched version of the standard AMW energy function, AMW-FME, which incorporates the local sequence alignment derived fragment libraries from fragment assembly directly into the energy function. This energy function, in which fragment information acts as a guide not a restriction, is found by molecular dynamics to improve on both previous approaches.