In three selected calmodulin coordinate entries, all 1296 planned one-residue endpoint and axis-rule comparisons kept the calcium-free helix-angle ranges above the 1X02 ranges. The smallest gap was 0.6629351897280458 degrees for C/D in 1DMO versus 1X02. A later C/D check allowed each endpoint to change by up to two residues. Ranges overlapped in 39 of 1250 rules for 1CFC and 129 of 1250 for 1DMO. The rule counts describe analysis choices, not biological probabilities. Undirected axes changed the direction of range separation for G/H. These are results from selected archive coordinate models and specified rules. They do not establish calcium causality, protein dynamics, or a correct physical helix axis. The downloaded files are identified by their recorded URLs and SHA-256 checksums; the archive URLs serve current files rather than immutable historical snapshots.
Across 302 deposited ubiquitin NMR models from PDB entries 1D3Z, 2K39, and 6V5D, exhaustive single-model deletion changed the 70-residue correlation matrix more than the core-versus-full alignment mask in 1D3Z at a 0.03 Å variance floor: all 10 removals exceeded the full-data tail-mask change, by at least 4.74705 times. The corresponding counts were 13/116 for 2K39 and 5/176 for 6V5D. The seven 1D3Z removals meeting the 0.2 sign-change size cutoff affected 92 unique residue pairs; no 2K39 or 6V5D removal met it. Refitting alignment changed the matrices further, but the counts above the tail effect were the same with fixed full-data alignment. These are observations on selected deposited coordinates, not independent biological observations, confidence intervals, or evidence of physical interactions. Shared experimental data and refinement dependence limit comparisons between entries, and the analysis does not establish which correlation matrix is physically accurate.
A prior study found no heavy-atom majority contact-label differences for eight specified ubiquitin residue pairs at distance limits of 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 Å in PDB entries 2K39 and 6V5D. This work reproduces that finite test and calculates the intervals where labels differ between the sampled limits. It uses chain A, author residues 1–70, pairs with sequence separation greater than two, and equal weights for all 116 models of 2K39 and 176 models of 6V5D. Five of the original eight pairs have heavy-atom differences within [3.5,5.0] Å, and two have side-chain differences; none occurs at the four tested limits. Across all eligible pairs, the four limits miss 82 of 135 positive-width heavy-atom intervals and 70 of 101 side-chain intervals under the main majority rule. These are distinct-pair counts; the full contact graphs can still differ at each tested limit. The two entries are dependent because 6V5D uses an alternative model of the original 2K39 data. A conditional coordinate-precision bound retains positive interval width for 81 missed heavy-atom pairs and 69 missed side-chain pairs. This bound is not an estimate of physical measurement error. The result applies to these two entries, the stated residue scope, and the tested contact rules. It does not identify a better ensemble or physical contact rule, establish a biological cause, or report a confidence interval.
This contribution asks what fraction of C-alpha contact-distance variance in 6V5D lies between the original 22 refinement groups of eight models. The checked PDB header, mmCIF fields, RCSB entry record, paper, and supplement did not provide the original model-to-group map; the search does not establish that no such map exists. Using 2026-10-09 snapshots of 6V5D revision 1.2 (176 models) and 2K39 revision 1.3 (116 models), the analysis reproduces a set of 69 shared invariant C-alpha contacts among 2,278 eligible pairs. It tests five illustrative 22-by-8 maps of 6V5D. The between-group fraction for the 69 contacts ranges from 3.255710% to 38.586309%; these constructed maps do not identify the original fraction, which remains unknown and could lie outside that range. For 1,000 uniform random equal-size partitions, the mean fraction is 12.018564% (Monte Carlo standard error 0.021400 percentage points), near the exact fixed-data expectation of 12%. This reference is not a biological null model. Checks support the arithmetic and parser outputs, and a separate run by the same researcher reproduced the output files; this is not independent verification. The selected, dependent models and coordinates do not establish physical state probabilities, biological causes, or the variance split for the original refinement groups.
We tested whether eight C-alpha majority-graph differences between ubiquitin coordinate ensembles 2K39 and 6V5D persist under C-beta, all-heavy-atom, and side-chain-heavy-atom contact rules. We used all 116 models of 2K39 (revision 1.3) and all 176 models of 6V5D (revision 1.2), chain A author residues 1–70, and residue separation >2. At the original 8 Å C-alpha rule, the graphs differed at eight pairs. At C-beta <8 Å, one of those differences remained (8–68), depending on the inclusive half-count majority rule. None of the eight differed under either all-heavy-atom or side-chain-heavy-atom rules at any of four tested cutoffs (3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 Å). Those graphs still differed at other pairs. The analysis reports results for supplied snapshots and discrete rules; it does not identify a physically correct contact definition, establish a more accurate ensemble, or separate atom-set effects from the different cutoffs. The ensembles are related, and their models and residue pairs are dependent. No independent-sample confidence interval or p-value is justified.
Adding a tail atom to an alignment mask decreased aggregate core fit error in 99 of 576 tests across three archived ubiquitin model sets: 74/192 for 1D3Z, 11/192 for 2K39, and 14/192 for 6V5D. Each test compared pairwise proper rigid fits for one mask and the mask with one additional C-alpha atom, using 70 core residues for evaluation and 1e-10 Ų as the numerical decrease threshold. All 64 masks and all unordered model pairs were analyzed. Core-only fitting remained the per-pair minimum within that tolerance, so these decreases do not imply greater biological accuracy. The models are selected and dependent coordinate ensembles of one protein; the pair counts are not independent biological samples. The work makes no biological accuracy or causal claim and does not estimate protein motion, populations, or timescales.
For 167 C-alpha residue pairs selected by a fixed 1UBQ crystal reference, the 2K39 ubiquitin ensemble had larger population distance SD than the 6V5D ensemble for 163 pairs. The median pairwise SD ratio was 1.7200498882688864, while their majority contact graphs shared 164 of 172 contacts (Jaccard index 0.9534883720930233). This comparison uses archived PDB revisions and equal weights for deposited models; it measures coordinate spread, not motion in solution or ensemble quality. Model construction, shared source information, coordinate uncertainty, and pair dependence limit interpretation. No hypothesis test, biological confidence interval, or held-out solution test was performed.
We compared top-three Cartesian principal component subspaces across equal model halves and between two alignment masks for three deposited ubiquitin NMR ensembles. The analysis used chain A C-alpha coordinates, residues 1–70 for PCA, and linear projection of six rigid tangent directions. Across 638 partitions, every paired gap was positive: within-half mask agreement exceeded between-half agreement. Median between-half RMSIP was 0.388529, 0.678154, and 0.763543 for entries 1D3Z, 2K39, and 6V5D; the corresponding full-ensemble mask RMSIPs were 0.999052, 0.998688, and 0.999752. The result indicates greater sensitivity to model selection than to these two fit masks in these selected, related ensembles. It does not establish mode accuracy or biological independence. The partitions overlap, 2K39 and 6V5D share data, and no held-out experimental accuracy test or authenticated 6V5D refinement-group map was available.
Across all deposited models of ubiquitin entries 2K39 (116 models) and 6V5D (176 models), the majority C-alpha contact maps for residues 1–70 had Jaccard agreement 0.953488 at a strict 8 Å cutoff. Yet for the 69 pairs that were contacts in every model of both entries, RMS pair-distance SD was 0.362780 Å in 2K39 and 0.205677 Å in 6V5D (ratio 1.763835), and every individual pair SD was larger in 2K39. The primary analysis used 2,278 residue pairs with sequence separation greater than two and population variance across equally weighted deposited models. The contrast remained above one across the declared common-invariant sensitivity grid and conditional model-selection diagnostics. This is a descriptive comparison of three convenience-cohort structures, not evidence of physical motion, ensemble accuracy, biological causation, or an archive-wide effect; related models are dependent and deposited-model weights need not represent physical populations. 1D3Z is descriptive context only.
In Protein Data Bank entry 6V5D, six separate tail-atom alignment costs did not add to the cost of fitting the full tail. Using all 176 models and 76 C-alpha atoms in chain A, we aligned models with generalized Procrustes fitting and measured coordinate variance in residues 1–70. The full-tail cost was 0.18292612791453855 Ų; the six single-atom costs summed to 0.10627480058171263 Ų, leaving a gap of 0.07665132733282592 Ų (41.902886267092876% of the full cost). All 1,462 saved selections of 16 models had a positive gap. For residue 71, the single-atom cost was +0.0011295066016146493 Ų, while its marginal cost after the other five tail atoms was −0.002613625792239116 Ų. These findings describe this alignment calculation on one fixed coordinate ensemble. They do not establish physical interactions, biological causality, or global convergence. The actual refinement groups remain unknown; selections overlap and quantiles are descriptive, not confidence intervals. The work does not measure dynamics or agreement with independent experimental data.
A descriptive pilot compared Cartesian covariance PCA after fitting ubiquitin Cα ensembles on residues 1–70 or 1–76, while evaluating residues 1–70, in pinned snapshots of 1D3Z, 2K39, and 6V5D. Across the three ensembles, projected top-three subspace RMSIP increased from 0.201895–0.598710 to 0.998688–0.999752; projected traces differed from core-fit traces by −0.0459% to +0.579%. These are within-cohort alignment-mask sensitivities, not evidence that the modes are biologically accurate. Synthetic examples show that linear tangent projection leaves residual variance for finite rotations and can leave false core variance when a flexible tail drives the fit. The pilot does not establish a validity regime or an optimal alignment method. The snapshots are related convenience ensembles, not independent biological samples; exact release authentication and held-out experimental validation are absent.
In a six-entry, nonrandom ubiquitin crystal panel, changing the deposited crystal C-alpha B profile while holding ensemble coordinates and alignment fixed reversed the Spearman ordering of 6V5D versus 2K39 in 2 of 12 chains. The chain-level difference ranged from -0.054659 to +0.121250, while entry-mean profiles gave positive differences for all six entries. Fresh code reproduced the prior 12-row correlation table on the same archived inputs (maximum absolute difference 2.22e-16). These are conditional observations about deposited models, not an ensemble quality ranking or a measure of biological dynamics. Chain choice, aggregation, and correlation metric matter; the small descriptive panel does not control temperature, packing, zinc, resolution, or refinement, and provides no significance test or causal estimate.
In 19 interictal SEEG records from OpenNeuro ds003876 version 1.0.2, removal of contact name groups from the common average reference produced greater 80 to 150 Hz power rank loss than matched random removal of the same number of contacts. Mean excess rank loss was 0.002976 (participant bootstrap 95% interval 0.001403 to 0.004815); all 19 participant estimates were positive, and the absolute effect was small. Group effects varied, and time variation between two 60-second segments was larger. Name groups are imperfect shaft proxies, and the sample is not representative of all patients or brain regions. The result concerns within-record ranks in two interictal minutes and does not establish clinical importance or a best reference.
We tested if indirect structural paths predict functional connectivity (FC) between brain regions beyond direct wiring. We used four data sets: fly hemibrain wiring with 2-photon FC (20 flies), FlyWire wiring with light-field FC (48 flies), the Allen mouse tracer model with resting fMRI (79 mice), and human diffusion MRI with resting fMRI (50 people). We added six communication measures (shortest path, search information, communicability, diffusion, two-step weight, connection-profile similarity) to cross-validated pair models with distance and direct wiring, and then with one fixed effect per region. We compared the real gains with gains from surrogate wiring that keeps the weights, the distance law and the node strengths (40-200 surrogates). Over distance and direct wiring, the measures increased cross-validated R2 in all data sets (0.131, 0.067, 0.045, 0.021 per individual), but the surrogates gave 76%, 57%, 48% and 100% of this gain. Region effects without any wiring explained more FC than distance plus direct wiring in flies and human. After region effects, the gain specific to the real paths was small in flies and human (0.008, 0.005, 0.003; surrogate p 0.005-0.022) and larger in mouse (0.031). In the same mice, this mouse gain was 0.033 under medetomidine plus isoflurane, but 0.008 under isoflurane alone (10 mice, p = 0.002) and awake (6 mice, p = 0.031). Walking did not change the fly gain. Limitations: region scale only; the mouse wiring is a smoothed tracer model; mouse and human have only 40-45 surrogates; node effects can absorb real hub communication.
Question: Fontenele et al. (2019) reported that, in anesthetized rat cortex, spike avalanches satisfy the crackling-noise scaling relation gamma = (tau_t - 1)/(tau - 1) only at an intermediate population CV, which they gave as evidence for criticality between cortical states. Does this hold in awake mice and in other brain divisions? Approach: We used two public Neuropixels data sets (Steinmetz et al. 2019, 39 sessions, 10 mice; IBL brain-wide map spontaneous epochs, 84 sessions). We made populations of 40 or 80 good units per area or division (isocortex, hippocampal formation, thalamus, midbrain, striatum, other), sorted 10-s windows by CV of 50-ms counts, and calculated Delta = predicted minus fitted gamma per CV group. A surrogate moved each spike inside its own 50-ms bin, which keeps the CV of every window. A driven branching network gave a positive and a negative control. Results: Delta stayed positive. In 204 Steinmetz populations of 40 units it fell from 0.43 (95% CI 0.40-0.46) in the lowest to 0.25 (0.23-0.29) in the highest CV decile, and changed sign in only 7.8% of populations. The smallest deviation was usually in the most synchronized windows, which were the quiet windows (less face and wheel movement). 80-unit populations and IBL data gave the same pattern. Jittered data gave nearly the same Delta profiles (median profile correlation 0.92-0.97; mean abs Delta difference 0.006, -0.021 and 0.000). A network with no propagation and slow common drive reproduced the data pattern. Limitation: a near-critical network (m = 0.995) met the relation only at weak drive (1.3 Hz per unit); at recorded rates (3.7-4.5 Hz) near-critical networks also gave Delta 0.14-0.22 and no jitter effect. Thus, with this sampling, the scaling-relation test cannot separate near-critical propagation from slow common drive in awake mice; the null result is not evidence against criticality. Fit ranges are short (about 1.5 decades).
This fixed-case descriptive analysis compares C-alpha coordinate spread in three deposited ubiquitin ensembles with the C-alpha B-factor profile of one crystal structure (1UBQ). All 303 coordinate models, including the crystal, have the same complete 76-residue chain A sequence. With models fitted on residues 1–70, Spearman correlations evaluated over residues 1–76 versus 1–70 were 0.344161 versus 0.161494 for 1D3Z, 0.634855 versus 0.533121 for 2K39, and 0.700256 versus 0.617070 for 6V5D. Fitting on residues 1–76 while evaluating residues 1–70 gave 0.315131, 0.523410, and 0.610508. For 1D3Z, median body RMSF changed from 0.084745 Å to 0.279052 Å with this alignment change. The body-only Pearson MSD/B ordering of 2K39 and 6V5D differed from their Spearman ordering. Tail residues 71–76 accounted for 99.0978%, 84.3245%, and 82.3486% of summed coordinate MSD in 1D3Z, 2K39, and 6V5D. Random ten-model subsets gave conditional sensitivity ranges, not biological confidence intervals. These observations describe the selected archive models and one crystal reference. They do not estimate biological motion, identify the more physically faithful ensemble, independently replicate the source studies, or test their original validation and kinetic claims. B-factors include static disorder, lattice, and refinement effects; 6V5D includes crystal-derived model subsets, and 2K39 and 6V5D are not independent. See the full methods, results, checks, and limitations in README.md.
In 30 mouse recording sessions, three quality filters increased the mean LGd minus VISp median firing-rate difference from 4.641771 Hz to 8.433269 Hz. The mean paired change was 3.791499 Hz (95% session-bootstrap interval 1.230817 to 7.633059). A planned check requiring at least five retained units per region reduced the estimate to 1.251400 Hz across 27 sessions (interval 0.729043 to 1.882380). Three sessions with only 1, 4, and 2 retained LGd units had large paired changes. These results describe selection in complete-session Allen metadata; they do not establish the firing rates of all neurons, identify a biological cause, or validate the quality metrics against ground truth. The source is a live Allen warehouse snapshot retrieved on 2026-10-09, not an immutable release. The analysis used metadata only, not spike archives.