Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Persistent Sheaf Laplacian Analysis of Protein Flexibility

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that persistent sheaf Laplacian spectra of Cα atoms predict protein B-factors with a Pearson correlation of 0.751, a 32% improvement over the Gaussian network model's 0.565.

desk verdict The PSL features are a plausible new descriptor, but the 32% claim is an in-sample artifact and the paper's own cross-validation says the real gain is small or negative. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08772 v2 pith:L2MQHRFP submitted 2025-02-12 q-bio.BM q-bio.QM

Nicole Hayes , Xiaoqi Wei , Hongsong Feng , Ekaterina Merkurjev , Guo-Wei Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMq-bio.QM MSC 55N3192C40
keywords proteinflexibilityB-factorpredictionpersistentsheafLaplaciantopologicaldataanalysisGaussiannetworkmodelDebye-Wallerfactormultiscalespectramachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Protein flexibility, measured by the B-factor, governs how proteins bind, catalyze, and signal, but classical elastic network models capture it only coarsely. This paper introduces the persistent sheaf Laplacian (PSL), a localized topological data analysis tool, to encode the local geometry and topology around each Cα atom. The authors report that a linear regression on PSL eigenvalue statistics reaches a Pearson correlation of 0.751 on a 364-protein superset, a 32% improvement over the Gaussian network model's 0.565. They also show that combining PSL features with global and local structural features supports blind machine-learning B-factor prediction.

What carries the argument

A cellular sheaf assigns a vector space (stalk) to each simplex and a linear map to each face relation; the persistent sheaf Laplacian generalizes the persistent Laplacian by incorporating these stalks and maps. Here the stalk over every simplex is R, and for a fixed atom A the restriction map along edge vivj is scalar multiplication by qj/rij, with qA = 0 and qj = 1 for all other atoms, so the resulting operator emphasizes the local neighborhood of A. The 0th persistent sheaf Laplacian is built from alpha complexes of the surrounding Cα atoms at radii 6, 9, and 12 angstroms; its nonzero eigenvalues supply five per-atom statistics per radius, giving a multiscale local descriptor that linear regression or tree-based models can use directly.

What would settle it

Run protein-level 10-fold cross-validation with the same 15 PSL features and linear regression used in Table 1, and average the Pearson correlation over held-out proteins. If that average does not exceed the 0.565 reported for GNM, the 32% improvement is an in-sample artifact; the paper's own leave-one-protein-out blind runs (0.588 with GBDT, 0.452 with protein-level 10-fold CV) already point in this direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the harmonic and non-harmonic spectra of 0th persistent sheaf Laplacians, computed separately for each Cα atom over three filtration radii, carry enough local structural information for accurate B-factor prediction. By labeling the target atom with a zero stalk weight and its neighbors with unit weights, the construction makes the Laplacian spectrum sensitive to the atom's immediate environment. Five statistics per radius — zero-eigenvalue count and the maximum, minimum, mean, and median (or standard deviation) of the nonzero eigenvalues — form 15 per-atom features, on which linear regression attains an average Pearson correlation of 0.751 across the 364-protein superset, compared with 0.565 for GNM. On the small, medium, and large subsets the same features reach 0.927, 0.728, and 0.643 respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that the Pearson correlation of a linear regression fit on the full 364-protein set, with filtration radii selected on that same set, is a valid measure of predictive performance, and that literature GNM values are directly comparable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PSL features can be generated for any Cα atom from coordinates alone and plugged into linear regression to achieve 0.751 Pearson correlation on the 364-protein superset.
  • The method outperforms GNM, NMA, ASPH, opFRI, and pfFRI on the small, medium, and large protein subsets in the paper's comparisons.
  • On proteins identified as GNM failures (calmodulin, mTFP1, 1V70, and L14), PSL reduces RMSE substantially, for example from 17.9 to 2.78 on 1V70.
  • Combining PSL features with secondary-structure assignments, packing density, and global PDB metadata enables blind prediction of B-factors for proteins without experimental B-factors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the headline 32% improvement is computed on the same proteins used to fit the regression, the fair generalization test is the paper's own leave-one-protein-out result; at 0.588 PCC the PSL+GBDT blind model barely clears GNM's 0.565, suggesting the in-sample gain does not carry over to unseen proteins.
  • The atom-level 10-fold cross-validation (0.84 PCC) pools Cα atoms from the same proteins into training and test folds, so its high correlation likely reflects within-protein memorization rather than cross-protein generalization.
  • The per-atom labeling trick — one distinguished zero label among unit neighbors — could be transferred to other local prediction tasks, such as solvent accessibility or mutation stability, by redefining the stalk labels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces persistent sheaf Laplacian (PSL) features for protein B-factor prediction. The authors construct local sheaf Laplacians on alpha-complex filtrations around each Cα atom, extract spectral statistics at three filtration radii, and use these as features in linear regression and in machine-learning pipelines with additional structural features. The headline claim is that the PSL model improves B-factor prediction accuracy by 32% over the Gaussian network model (GNM) on a 364-protein dataset, and the paper also presents case studies and a 'blind' machine-learning validation section.

Significance. The construction of a persistent sheaf Laplacian for per-atom, multiscale protein descriptors is mathematically interesting, and the authors share code and data, which is commendable. If the reported 32% improvement over GNM were obtained under a fair predictive protocol, the method would be a valuable addition to protein flexibility analysis. However, the central evidence does not support that claim: the Table 1 result is an in-sample linear regression whose radii were selected on the same proteins used for evaluation, and the paper's own held-out validation shows a much smaller gain (PCC 0.588 leave-one-protein-out GBDT) or a loss relative to GNM (PCC 0.452 protein-level 10-fold CV). The significance of the work as presented is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.2, Table 1] The 'predictions' in Table 1 are in-sample fits, not predictions. The authors state that they conducted experiments on the 364-protein set with a few sets of parameters and chose those that gave a good average Pearson correlation over the entire set, and the linear regression coefficients were then fit on the same proteins. The reported PSL PCC of 0.751 and the resulting '32% improvement over GNM' are therefore descriptive in-sample correlations. The GNM baseline is taken from Park et al. (2013) rather than recomputed under the same pipeline, so the comparison mixes a fitted model with a fixed baseline and no error bars. The abstract's wording 'in predicting B-factors' is not supported by this experiment; a held-out comparison using an identical evaluation protocol is required.
  2. [§2.3.6, Tables 4 and 5] The paper's own blind validation contradicts the headline claim. Leave-one-protein-out GBDT achieves PCC 0.588 on the superset (Table 4), only slightly above the literature GNM value of 0.565 cited in Table 1, while protein-level 10-fold cross-validation gives PCC 0.452 (Table 5), below the GNM baseline. Unless this discrepancy is explained—for example by protocol differences or by isolating the contribution of the PSL features—the 32% improvement claim cannot be maintained. These results need to be discussed honestly in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [§2.3.6, Table 6] The Cα-level 10-fold cross-validation reported in Table 6 splits individual atoms randomly rather than by protein. Because atoms from the same protein appear in both training and test sets, and B-factors within a protein are strongly correlated, the high PCC values (0.839 and 0.840) mostly reflect within-protein interpolation and do not measure generalization to unseen proteins. This experiment should not be presented as evidence for cross-protein 'blind' prediction; protein-level splits, such as those in Tables 4 and 5, are the relevant evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'increase in accuracy of 32%' should be qualified as an in-sample Pearson correlation improvement relative to a literature GNM baseline, not as a predictive accuracy gain, unless a held-out comparison supports it.
  2. [§2.3.6] The sentence describing the leave-one-protein-out experiment says the authors trained models five times and calculated the average from 'ten sets of modeling predictions'; this is confusing—presumably ten folds were used, so the wording should be clarified.
  3. [Table 3] The random forest parameter 'min samples leaf = 0.8' is unusual; if it is a fraction, the denominator should be stated, and if it is an integer, 0.8 is not valid. Please clarify.
  4. [§2.3.2 and §2.1.2] Section 2.1.2 uses L0 sheaf Laplacians and eigenvalue statistics including the median, while Section 2.3.2 uses L1 matrices with the standard deviation; the reasons for these different choices should be stated.
  5. [§2.2, Figure 5] For the 1WHI case study the PSL RMSE is not reported numerically; the text says only that it is nearly half of the GNM RMSE of 6.59. Please give the exact value.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Headline 32% PSL-vs-GNM gain is an in-sample fit: filtration radii and linear regression are selected and evaluated on the same 364-protein B-factor sets, and the paper's own held-out evaluations do not beat GNM.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1.2 and Table 1 (abstract: 'increase in accuracy of 32%')]
    "To better assess the performance of the PSL method relative to other approaches and to avoid overfitting, we did not perform an extensive search for the optimal filtration radii and eigenvalue statistic parameters for each task below. Rather, we conducted experiments on the set of 364 proteins with a few sets of parameters and chose those that yielded a good average Pearson correlation coefficient over the entire set."

    Table 1's superset PCC of 0.751 and the claimed 32% improvement over GNM are produced by linear regression on the same 364-protein B-factor sets being scored (Section 2.1.2: 'we performed linear regression using the set of PSL features for the full set of 364 proteins'), with the filtration radii (6, 9, 12 Å) and eigenvalue-statistic choices selected by their average PCC on exactly those proteins. The GNM baseline (0.565) is a fixed parameter-free model, so the comparison mixes a fitted in-sample regression with an unfitted benchmark. The paper's own blind experiments quantify the gap: leave-one-protein-out GBDT gives PCC 0.588 on the superset (Table 4) and protein-level 10-fold CV gives 0.452 (Table 5), at or below GNM. Thus the headline improvement is a fit labeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central performance claim in the abstract and Section 2.1.2 reduces to an in-sample fit: the PSL features, their filtration radii, and the linear-regression weights are all determined using the same 364 B-factor sets whose correlations are reported in Table 1, and the GNM baseline is not fitted to those data. This is exactly the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, so the 32% 'increase in accuracy' cannot be read as a predictive gain. The separate blind machine-learning section (Section 2.3) is substantially less circular: it uses held-out proteins (leave-one-protein-out and protein-level 10-fold CV) and reports modest PCCs (0.588 and 0.452), which do not support the headline improvement and in fact fall near or below the GNM baseline. That section represents honest non-circular evaluation, and the PSL construction is mathematically defined rather than imported from an unverified uniqueness theorem; no self-citation circularity is load-bearing for the derivation. Score 7 reflects that the headline result is produced by fitting to the test set, even though a non-circular but much weaker blind evaluation also exists in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on several hand-chosen parameters (filtration radii, eigenvalue statistics, packing density cutoffs, ML hyperparameters) and on assumptions about the biophysical meaning of the sheaf restriction maps. It also assumes that literature GNM baselines are comparable, which the paper's own blind results call into question. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Filtration radii for linear regression = 6, 9, 12 Å
    Selected by evaluating average PCC over the full 364-protein set (Section 2.1.2), i.e., using the test set to choose parameters.
  • Filtration radii for blind prediction = 7, 10, 13 Å
    Chosen by hand for the ML pipeline (Section 2.3.2); no tuning procedure described.
  • Linear regression coefficients = Not reported
    The regression in Section 2.1 fits coefficients mapping PSL features to B-factors on the same proteins used for evaluation.
  • RF and GBDT hyperparameters = n_estimators=1000; max_depth=7 or 8; min_samples_split=4 or 5; etc.
    Hand-selected values listed in Table 3; no tuning procedure described.
  • Packing density cutoffs = Short <3 Å; medium 3-5 Å; long >=5 Å
    Fixed values in Table 2, chosen without prior justification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The kernel of the persistent sheaf Laplacian is isomorphic to persistent sheaf cohomology, and non-zero eigenvalues carry geometric information.
    Taken from the authors' own prior work (Refs. [41,42]); used to justify using eigenvalue statistics as features (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Cα B-factors are a valid measure of atomic flexibility and are predictable from local geometric features.
    Standard assumption in the field, cited from Xia et al. (Ref. [13]); underpins the whole prediction setup.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen sheaf restriction maps (q_j/r_ij and q_k/(r_ik r_jk)) meaningfully encode protein flexibility.
    These maps are introduced in Section 3.2 without derivation or physical justification; the label q=0 for the central atom is also ad hoc.
  • ad hoc to paper Literature GNM and other baseline results are directly comparable to the authors' regression results even though the evaluation protocols differ.
    Table 1 compares in-sample regression PCC to parameter-free literature baselines; no attempt is made to re-run baselines under the same protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Persistent Sheaf Laplacian Analysis of Protein Flexibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2MQHRFP

@misc{pith2026250208772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Persistent Sheaf Laplacian Analysis of Protein Flexibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2MQHRFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08772}
}
read the original abstract

Protein flexibility, measured by the B-factor or Debye-Waller factor, is essential for protein functions such as structural support, enzyme activity, cellular communication, and molecular transport. Theoretical analysis and prediction of protein flexibility are crucial for protein design, engineering, and drug discovery. In this work, we introduce the persistent sheaf Laplacian (PSL), an effective tool in topological data analysis, to model and analyze protein flexibility. By representing the local topology and geometry of protein atoms through the multiscale harmonic and non-harmonic spectra of PSLs, the proposed model effectively captures protein flexibility and provides accurate, robust predictions of protein B-factors. Our PSL model demonstrates an increase in accuracy of 32% compared to the classical Gaussian network model (GNM) in predicting B-factors for a dataset of 364 proteins. Additionally, we construct a blind machine learning prediction method utilizing global and local protein features. Extensive computations and comparisons validate the effectiveness of the proposed PSL model for B-factor predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of the methods used in our work. The blind B-factor prediction in Section 2.3 utilizes all pictured features, while the protein subset results from Section 2.1 include only the topological features generated using the persistent sheaf Laplacian (PSL) model. sheaf Laplacian (PSL),41 the persistent directed graph Laplacian, and the persistent hyperdigraph Laplacian.42 Most of these algorithms are global, offer… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: visualization of the protein calmodulin (PDB ID: 1CLL) using Visual Molecular Dynamics (VMD), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: visualization of the protein mTFP1 (PDB ID: 2HQK) using VMD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: visualization of the protein with PDB ID 1V70 using VMD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: visualization of the ribosomal protein L14 (PDB ID: 1WHI) using VMD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Protein structure and function

    Gregory A Petsko and Dagmar Ringe. Protein structure and function. New Science Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Introduction to protein structure

    Carl Ivar Branden and John Tooze. Introduction to protein structure. Garland Science, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Protein flexibility and intrinsic disorder

    Predrag Radivojac, Zoran Obradovic, David K Smith, Guang Zhu, Slobodan Vucetic, Celeste J Brown, J David Lawson, and A Keith Dunker. Protein flexibility and intrinsic disorder. Protein Science, 13(1):71–80, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Zhoutong Sun, Qian Liu, Ge Qu, Yan Feng, and Manfred T. Reetz. Utility of b-factors in protein sci- ence: Interpreting rigidity, flexibility, and internal motion and engineering thermostability. Chemical Reviews, 119(3):1626–1665, 2019. PMID: 30698416

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Atom-specific persistent homology and its application to protein flexibility analysis

    David Bramer and Guo-Wei Wei. Atom-specific persistent homology and its application to protein flexibility analysis. Computational and Mathematical Biophysics , 8(1):1–35, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Prediction of protein B-factor profiles

    Zheng Yuan, Timothy L Bailey, and Rohan D Teasdale. Prediction of protein B-factor profiles. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 58(4):905–912, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Usefulness and limitations of normal mode analysis in modeling dynamics of biomolecular complexes

    Jianpeng Ma. Usefulness and limitations of normal mode analysis in modeling dynamics of biomolecular complexes. Structure, 13(3):373–380, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Accuracy of protein flexibility predictions

    Mauno Vihinen, Esa Torkkila, and Pentti Riikonen. Accuracy of protein flexibility predictions. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 19(2):141–149, 1994

    work page 1994

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Protein flexibility predictions using graph theory

    Donald J Jacobs, Andrew J Rader, Leslie A Kuhn, and Michael F Thorpe. Protein flexibility predictions using graph theory. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 44(2):150–165, 2001

    2001

  2. [10]

    Flexserv: an integrated tool for the analysis of protein flexibility

    Jordi Camps, Oliver Carrillo, Agust´ı Emperador, Laura Orellana, Adam Hospital, Manuel Rueda, Damjan Cicin- Sain, Marco D’Abramo, Josep Llu´ıs Gelp´ı, and Modesto Orozco. Flexserv: an integrated tool for the analysis of protein flexibility. Bioinformatics, 25(13):1709–1710, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Andrew McCammon, Bruce R

    J. Andrew McCammon, Bruce R. Gelin, and Martin Karplus. Dynamics of folded proteins. Nature, 267(5612):585–590, 1977

    1977

  4. [12]

    Bennett Jr

    Robert Huber and William S. Bennett Jr. Functional significance of flexibility in proteins. Biopolymers, 22(1):261–279, 1983

    1983

  5. [13]

    Multiscale multiphysics and multidomain models—flexibility and rigidity

    Kelin Xia, Kristopher Opron, and Guo-Wei Wei. Multiscale multiphysics and multidomain models—flexibility and rigidity. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 139(19), 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Coarse grained normal mode analysis vs

    Jun-Koo Park, Robert Jernigan, and Zhijun Wu. Coarse grained normal mode analysis vs. refined Gaussian network model for protein residue-level structural fluctuations. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology , 75:124–160, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Ataka, Anil M

    Mitsuo Tasumi, Haruki Takeuchi, S. Ataka, Anil M. Dwivedi, and Samuel Krimm. Normal vibrations of pro- teins: glucagon. Biopolymers, 21(3):711—714, March 1982

    1982

  8. [16]

    Brooks, Robert E

    Bernard R. Brooks, Robert E. Bruccoleri, Barry D. Olafson, David J. States, S. Swaminathan, and Martin Karplus. CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations.Journal of Computational Chemistry, 4(2):187–217, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    Dynamics of a small globular protein in terms of low- frequency vibrational modes

    Nobuhiro Go, Tosiyuki Noguti, and Tetsuo Nishikawa. Dynamics of a small globular protein in terms of low- frequency vibrational modes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 80(12):3696–3700, 1983

    1983

  10. [18]

    Michael Levitt, Christian Sander, and Peter S. Stern. Protein normal-mode dynamics: Trypsin inhibitor, cram- bin, ribonuclease and lysozyme. Journal of Molecular Biology, 181(3):423–447, 1985

    1985

  11. [19]

    Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model

    Ali Rana Atilgan, Stewart Durell, Robert Jernigan, Melik Demirel, ¨Ozlem Keskin, and Ivet Bahar. Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model. Biophysical Journal, 80(1):505–515, 2001

    2001

  12. [20]

    Demirel, and Burak Erman

    Ivet Bahar, Ali Rana Atilgan, Melik C. Demirel, and Burak Erman. Vibrational dynamics of folded proteins: Significance of slow and fast motions in relation to function and stability. Physical Review Letters , 80:2733– 2736, Mar 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    Direct evaluation of thermal fluctuations in proteins using a single-parameter harmonic potential

    Ivet Bahar, Ali Rana Atilgan, and Burak Erman. Direct evaluation of thermal fluctuations in proteins using a single-parameter harmonic potential. F olding and Design, 2(3):173–181, 1997

    1997

  14. [22]

    Analysis of domain motions by approximate normal mode calculations

    Konrad Hinsen. Analysis of domain motions by approximate normal mode calculations. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 33(3):417–429, 1998

    1998

  15. [23]

    A coarse-grained normal mode approach for macromolecules: An efficient imple- mentation and application to Ca2+-ATPase

    Guohui Li and Qiang Cui. A coarse-grained normal mode approach for macromolecules: An efficient imple- mentation and application to Ca2+-ATPase. Biophysical Journal, 83(5):2457–2474, 2024/07/24 2002. 13

    2024

  16. [24]

    Conformational change of proteins arising from normal mode calculations

    Florence Tama and Yves-Henri Sanejouand. Conformational change of proteins arising from normal mode calculations. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection , 14(1):1–6, 01 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    Fast and anisotropic flexibility-rigidity index for protein flexibility and fluctuation analysis

    Kristopher Opron, Kelin Xia, and Guo-Wei Wei. Fast and anisotropic flexibility-rigidity index for protein flexibility and fluctuation analysis. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 140(23):234105, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Multiscale Gaussian network model (mGNM) and multiscale anisotropic network model (mANM)

    Kelin Xia, Kristopher Opron, and Guo-Wei Wei. Multiscale Gaussian network model (mGNM) and multiscale anisotropic network model (mANM). The Journal of Chemical Physics , 143(20):204106, 11 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Statistical thermodynamics of random networks

    Paul J Flory. Statistical thermodynamics of random networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences , 351(1666):351–380, 1976

    1976

  20. [28]

    Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins.Physical Review Letters, 79:3090–3093, Oct 1997

    Turkan Haliloglu, Ivet Bahar, and Burak Erman. Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins.Physical Review Letters, 79:3090–3093, Oct 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    Coarse-grained models reveal functional dynamics - i

    Lee-Wei Yang and Choon-Peng Chng. Coarse-grained models reveal functional dynamics - i. elastic network models – theories, comparisons and perspectives. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights , 2:BBI.S460, 2008. PMID: 19812764

    2008

  22. [30]

    Communication: Capturing protein multiscale thermal fluctu- ations

    Kristopher Opron, Kelin Xia, and Guo-Wei Wei. Communication: Capturing protein multiscale thermal fluctu- ations. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 142(21):211101, 06 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Protein flexibility and rigidity predicted from sequence

    Avner Schlessinger and Burkhard Rost. Protein flexibility and rigidity predicted from sequence. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 61(1):115–126, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Predyflexy: flexibility and local structure prediction from sequence

    Alexandre G de Brevern, Aurelie Bornot, Pierrick Craveur, Catherine Etchebest, and Jean-Christophe Gelly. Predyflexy: flexibility and local structure prediction from sequence. Nucleic Acids Research , 40(W1):W317– W322, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    MEDUSA: prediction of protein flexibility from sequence

    Yann Vander Meersche, Gabriel Cretin, Alexandre G de Brevern, Jean-Christophe Gelly, and Tatiana Galochk- ina. MEDUSA: prediction of protein flexibility from sequence. Journal of Molecular Biology, 433(11):166882, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Deep learning model for efficient protein– ligand docking with implicit side-chain flexibility.Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(6):1695– 1707, 2023

    Matthew R Masters, Amr H Mahmoud, Yao Wei, and Markus A Lill. Deep learning model for efficient protein– ligand docking with implicit side-chain flexibility.Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(6):1695– 1707, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Accurate prediction of protein structural flexibility by deep learning integrating intricate atomic structures and cryo-em density information

    Xintao Song, Lei Bao, Chenjie Feng, Qiang Huang, Fa Zhang, Xin Gao, and Renmin Han. Accurate prediction of protein structural flexibility by deep learning integrating intricate atomic structures and cryo-em density information. Nature Communications, 15(1):5538, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Opus-bfactor: Predicting protein b-factor with sequence and structure information

    Gang Xu, Yulu Yang, Ying Lv, Zhenwei Luo, Qinghua Wang, and Jianpeng Ma. Opus-bfactor: Predicting protein b-factor with sequence and structure information. bioRxiv, pages 2024–07, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Persistent spectral graph

    Rui Wang, Duc Duy Nguyen, and Guo-Wei Wei. Persistent spectral graph. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering , 36(9):e3376, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Evolutionary de rham-hodge method

    Jiahui Chen, Rundong Zhao, Yiying Tong, and Guo-Wei Wei. Evolutionary de rham-hodge method. Discrete and continuous dynamical systems. Series B , 26(7):3785, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Topology and data

    Gunnar Carlsson. Topology and data. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 46(2):255–308, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Persistent homology-a survey

    Herbert Edelsbrunner, John Harer, et al. Persistent homology-a survey. Contemporary Mathematics , 453(26):257–282, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    Persistent sheaf Laplacians

    Xiaoqi Wei and Guo-Wei Wei. Persistent sheaf Laplacians. F oundations of Data Science, 7(2):446–463, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Persistent topological Laplacians–a survey

    Xiaoqi Wei and Guo-Wei Wei. Persistent topological Laplacians–a survey. Mathematics, 13(2):208, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Bernstein, Thomas F

    Frances C. Bernstein, Thomas F. Koetzle, Graheme J. B. Williams, Edgar F. Meyer Jr, Michael D. Brice, John R. Rodgers, Olga Kennard, Takehiko Shimanouchi, and Mitsuo Tasumi. The Protein Data Bank.European Journal of Biochemistry, 80(2):319–324, 1977

    1977

  36. [44]

    VMD: Visual molecular dynamics

    William Humphrey, Andrew Dalke, and Klaus Schulten. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. Journal of Molec- ular Graphics, 14(1):33–38, 1996

    1996

  37. [45]

    STRIDE: a web server for secondary structure assignment from known atomic coordinates of proteins

    Matthias Heinig and Dmitrij Frishman. STRIDE: a web server for secondary structure assignment from known atomic coordinates of proteins. Nucleic Acids Research, 32(Web Server issue):W500–W502, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    A fast graph-based data classification method with applications to 3d sensory data in the form of point clouds

    Ekaterina Merkurjev. A fast graph-based data classification method with applications to 3d sensory data in the form of point clouds. Pattern Recognition Letters, 136:154–160, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Multiclass data segmentation using diffuse interface methods on graphs

    Cristina Garcia-Cardona, Ekaterina Merkurjev, Andrea Bertozzi, Arjuna Flenner, and Allon Percus. Multiclass data segmentation using diffuse interface methods on graphs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 36(8):1600–1613, 2014. 14

    2014

  40. [48]

    Diffuse interface methods for multiclass segmentation of high-dimensional data

    Ekaterina Merkurjev, Cristina Garcia-Cardona, Andrea Bertozzi, Arjuna Flenner, and Allon Percus. Diffuse interface methods for multiclass segmentation of high-dimensional data. Applied Mathematics Letters , 33:29– 34, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Integration of element specific persistent homology and machine learning for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction

    Zixuan Cang and Guo-Wei Wei. Integration of element specific persistent homology and machine learning for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 34(2):e2914, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Learning sheaf laplacians from smooth signals

    Jakob Hansen and Robert Ghrist. Learning sheaf laplacians from smooth signals. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5446–5450. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Persistent sheaf cohomology

    Florian Russold. Persistent sheaf cohomology. arXiv preprint , 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.13446 (accessed 2023-10-01)

    2022 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Evolutionary homology on coupled dynamical systems with applications to protein flexibility analysis

    Zixuan Cang, Elizabeth Munch, and Guo-Wei Wei. Evolutionary homology on coupled dynamical systems with applications to protein flexibility analysis. Journal of Aapplied and Computational Topology, 4:481–507, 2020. 15

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.