Ablating Design Choices for Protein Ensemble Generators Across Structural Regimes

Generative models of protein conformational ensembles inherit much of their design from structure prediction for folded proteins. Ordered and disordered proteins, however, occupy distinct structural regimes, and we investigate how design choices hold up across them. Using a minimal C$α$ flow-matching model, we ablate choices of architecture, sequence conditioning, rigid-body alignment and training source, and evaluate each variant against experimental SAXS and NMR chemical-shift data partitioned into ordered, disordered, multi-domain and transitional proteins. Mixture-of-experts routing, a static pair representation and a disorder probe have no detectable effect, a smaller protein language model performs worse on ordered proteins but not on disordered ones, and alignment in the loss degrades agreement with SAXS. Replacing coarse-grained simulations of disordered proteins with fragment-assembled ensembles improves agreement with chemical shifts at a cost to SAXS, while an equal mixture of the two keeps most of the gain at a smaller cost. This points to the training data, rather than the architecture, as the main constraint.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.05055
Primary Topic
Protein Structure and Dynamics
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Ablating Design Choices for Protein Ensemble Generators Across Structural Regimes

Oliver Bent, Eoin Quinn
arXiv (Cornell University)
Protein Structure and Dynamics
preprint

Ablating Design Choices for Protein Ensemble Generators Across Structural Regimes

Oliver Bent, Eoin Quinn
preprint en

Abstract

Generative models of protein conformational ensembles inherit much of their design from structure prediction for folded proteins. Ordered and disordered proteins, however, occupy distinct structural regimes, and we investigate how design choices hold up across them. Using a minimal C$α$ flow-matching model, we ablate choices of architecture, sequence conditioning, rigid-body alignment and training source, and evaluate each variant against experimental SAXS and NMR chemical-shift data partitioned into ordered, disordered, multi-domain and transitional proteins. Mixture-of-experts routing, a static pair representation and a disorder probe have no detectable effect, a smaller protein language model performs worse on ordered proteins but not on disordered ones, and alignment in the loss degrades agreement with SAXS. Replacing coarse-grained simulations of disordered proteins with fragment-assembled ensembles improves agreement with chemical shifts at a cost to SAXS, while an equal mixture of the two keeps most of the gain at a smaller cost. This points to the training data, rather than the architecture, as the main constraint.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Protein Structure and Dynamics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon