Ice Lounge Media

Ice Lounge Media

DeepMind has already notched up a streak of wins, showcasing AIs that have learned to play a variety of complex games with superhuman skill, from Go and StarCraft to Atari’s entire back catalogue. But Demis Hassabis, DeepMind’s public face and co-founder, has always stressed that these successes were just stepping stones towards a larger goal: AI that actually helps us understand the world.

Today DeepMind and the organizers of the long-running Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) competition announced an AI that should have the huge impact that Hassabis has been after. The latest version of DeepMind’s AlphaFold, a deep-learning system that can accurately predict the structure of proteins to within the width of an atom, has cracked one of biology’s grand challenges. “It’s the first use of AI to solve a serious problem,” says John Moult at the University of Maryland, who leads the team that runs CASP.

A protein is made from a ribbon of amino acids that folds itself up with many complex twists and turns and tangles. This structure determines what it does. And figuring out what proteins do is key to understanding the basic mechanisms of life, when it works and when it doesn’t. Efforts to develop vaccines for covid-19 have focused on the virus’s spike protein, for example. The way the coronavirus snags onto human cells depends on the shape of this protein and the shapes of the proteins on the outsides of those cells. The spike is just one protein among billions across all living things; there are tens of thousands of different types of protein inside the human body alone.      

In this year’s CASP, AlphaFold predicted the structure of dozens of proteins with a margin of error of just 1.6 angstroms—that’s 0.16 nanometers, or atom-sized. This far outstrips all other computational methods and for the first time matches the accuracy of experimental techniques to map out the structure of proteins in the lab, such as cryo-electron microscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance and x-ray crystallography. These techniques are expensive and slow: it can take hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of trial and error for each protein. AlphaFold can find a protein’s shape in a few days.

The breakthrough could help researchers design new drugs and understand diseases. In the longer term, predicting protein structure will also help design synthetic proteins, such as enzymes that digest waste or produce biofuels. Researchers are also exploring ways to introduce synthetic proteins that will increase crop yields and make plants more nutritious.

“It’s a very substantial advance,” says Mohammed AlQuraishi, a systems biologist at Columbia University who has developed his own software for predicting protein structure. “It’s something I simply didn’t expect to happen nearly this rapidly. It’s shocking, in a way.”

“This really is a big deal,” says David Baker, head of the Institute for Protein Design at the University of Washington and leader of the team behind Rosetta, a family of protein analysis tools. “It’s an amazing achievement, like what they did with Go.”

Astronomical numbers

Identifying a protein’s structure is very hard. For most proteins, researchers have the sequence of amino acids in the ribbon but not the contorted shape they fold into. And there are typically an astronomical number of possible shapes for each sequence. Researchers have been wrestling with the problem at least since the 1970s, when Christian Anfinsen won the Nobel prize for showing that sequences determined structure.

The launch of CASP in 1994 gave the field a boost. Every two years, the organizers release 100 or so amino acid sequences for proteins whose shapes have been identified in the lab but not yet made public. Dozens of teams from around the world then compete to find the correct way to fold them up using software. Many of the tools developed for CASP are already used by medical researchers. But progress was slow, with two decades of incremental advances failing to produce a shortcut to painstaking lab work.   

CASP got the jolt it was looking for when DeepMind entered the competition in 2018 with its first version of AlphaFold. It still could not match the accuracy of a lab but it left other computational techniques in the dust. Researchers took note: soon many were adapting their own systems to work more like AlphaFold.

This year more than half of the entries use some form of deep learning, says Moult. The accuracy overall was higher as a result. Baker’s new system, called trRosetta, uses some of DeepMind’s ideas from 2018. But it still came a “very distant second,” he says.

In CASP, results are scored using what’s known as a global distance test (GDT), which measures on a scale from 0 to 100 how close a predicted structure is to the actual shape of a protein identified in lab experiments. The latest version of AlphaFold scored well for all proteins in the challenge. But it got a GDT score above 90 for around two thirds of them. Its GDT for the hardest proteins was 25 points higher than the next best team, says John Jumper, who heads up the AlphaFold team at DeepMind. In 2018 the lead was around six points.

A score above 90 means that any differences between the predicted structure and the actual structure could be down to experimental errors in the lab rather than a fault in the software. It could also mean that the predicted structure is a valid alternative configuration to the one identified in the lab, within the range of natural variation.

According to Jumper, there were four proteins in the competition that independent judges had not finished working on in the lab and AlphaFold’s predictions pointed them towards the correct structures.

AlQuraishi thought it would take researchers 10 years to get from AlphaFold’s 2018 results to this year’s. This is close to the physical limit for how accurate you can get, he says. “These structures are fundamentally floppy. It doesn’t make sense to talk about resolutions much below that.”

Puzzle pieces

AlphaFold builds on the work of hundreds of researchers around the world. DeepMind also drew on a wide range of expertise, putting together a team of biologists, physicists and computer scientists. Details of how it works will be released this week at the CASP conference and in a peer-reviewed article in a special issue of the journal Proteins next year. But we do know that it uses a form of attention network, a deep-learning technique that allows an AI to train by focusing on parts of a larger problem. Jumper compares the approach to assembling a jigsaw: it pieces together local chunks first before fitting these into a whole.

DeepMind trained AlphaFold on around 170,000 proteins taken from the protein data bank, a public repository of sequences and structures. It compared multiple sequences in the data bank and looked for pairs of amino acids that often end up close together in folded structures. It then uses this data to guess the distance between pairs of amino acids in structures that are not yet known. It is also able to assess how accurate these guesses are. Training took “a few weeks,” using computing power equivalent to between 100 and 200 GPUs.

Dame Janet Thornton at the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, UK, has been working on the structure and function of proteins for 50 years. “That’s really as long as this problem has been around,” she said in a press conference last week. “I was beginning to think it would not get solved in my lifetime.”

Many drugs are designed by simulating their 3D molecular structure and looking for ways to slot these molecules into target proteins. Of course, this can only be done if the structure of those proteins is known. This is the case for only a quarter of the roughly 20,000 human proteins, says Thornton. That leaves 15,000 untapped drug targets. “AlphaFold will open up a new area of research.”

DeepMind says it plans to study leishmaniasis, sleeping sickness, and malaria, all tropical diseases caused by parasites, because they are linked to lots of unknown protein structures.

One drawback of AlphaFold is that it is slow compared to rival techniques. AlQuraishi’s system, which uses an algorithm called a recurrent geometrical network (RGN), can find protein structures a million times faster—returning results in seconds rather than days. Its predictions are less accurate, but for some applications speed is more important, he says.

Researchers are now waiting to find out exactly how AlphaFold works. “Once they describe to the world how they do it then a thousand flowers will bloom,” says Baker. “People will be using it for all kinds of different things, things that we can’t imagine now.”

Even a less accurate result would have been good news for people working on enzymes or bacteria, says AlQuraishi: “But we have something even better, with immediate relevance to pharmaceutical applications.”

Read more

Last decade’s clean-tech gold rush ended in disaster, wiping out billions in investments and scaring venture capitalists away for years.

But a new investment boom is building again, this time around a broader set of climate-related technologies. Funding has soared more than 3,750% since 2013, according to a PwC report this fall, as numerous climate-focused venture firms emerge and established players return to the field (including some that got scorched the last time). Investments are poised to rise further as market, policy, and technological forces align to make venture capitalists and entrepreneurs more confident.

One of these factors is President-elect Joe Biden’s pledge to push through climate-friendly legislation, regulations, and executive orders. There are also rising hopes that Congress will pass stimulus bills that would funnel massive amounts of money into clean tech, much as the Obama administration did during the global financial crisis.

Regardless of what happens on the US federal level, growing numbers of states, nations, and corporations are committing to achieve net zero emissions in the coming decades. Those targets alone promise to create significant demand for clean energy and other climate-related technologies.

“Climate has many, many problems, with many different solutions—and that will create many opportunities to build big, valuable companies,” Andrew Beebe, managing director of Obvious Ventures, which invests in clean-energy and transportation startups, said in an email. “From batteries to mobility to energy efficiency to carbon capture and beyond.”

The ultimate size and fate of the next boom, however, could depend on how quickly and fully the economy recovers from the devastating covid-driven downturn—and how well investors learned their lessons from the last bust.

What went wrong

The original clean-tech boom was a bloodbath. Investors plowed some $25 billion into startups from 2006 to 2011—but they lost more than half their money in the end, according to an MIT Energy Initiative analysis in 2016. In fact, more than 90% of the companies funded after 2007 didn’t even return the capital invested.

A variety of factors were to blame.

The global recession dried up the market for new or follow-on investments. The collapse of silicon prices as China scaled up solar panel production hammered thin-film startups and others pursuing alternative approaches. And the advanced biofuel sector struggled to compete as the downturn undercut oil prices and the rise of fracking tapped into new domestic natural-gas reserves.

But the MIT analysis concluded that “external economic trends” weren’t the primary problem. The bigger issue was that startups still deep in the research-and-development stage were a poor fit with the venture capital industry, which was counting on the sorts of high returns in three to five years that it enjoyed in software.

Clean-tech companies required too much money and time to demonstrate and scale up their technologies, says John Weyant, a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford, who coauthored a book examining what went wrong.

Advanced biofuels, thin-film solar companies, and all sorts of energy storage startups of the era were simply too immature and too expensive to be commercialized—and in many cases they remain so today. Weyant’s book also concludes that while clean-tech founders may have had ample experience developing technologies, many had little in building manufacturing capacity and operating businesses. That made it hard to compete in commodity fields with powerful incumbent players and ultra-thin margins.

The next boom

A lot has changed since then.

Clean technologies themselves have gotten better and cheaper. Renewables can now largely compete directly on cost with coal and natural-gas plants, following a massive buildout of manufacturing plants and solar and wind farms around the globe. Likewise, the improving price and performance of lithium-ion batteries is making electric vehicles more attractive to consumers and automakers.

“Despite the headwinds of the Trump administration, the march to clean energy and a clean economy is moving full speed ahead,” says Nancy Pfund, founder and managing partner at DBL Partners.

Meanwhile, Japan, the European Union, and China have all committed to effectively decarbonize their economies by around midcentury. Similarly, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and even fossil-fuel giants like BP, Shell, and Total have all announced “net zero” emissions plans.

Together, these trends have eliminated the technical risks from big parts of the clean-tech sector and set the stage for the development of major new markets. And little of this has been lost on investors.

From 2013 to 2019, early-stage investments in climate-related tech leaped from about $420 million to more than $16 billion, according to the PwC report. That’s three times the growth rate of venture investments into artificial intelligence, itself a booming market in recent years.

A number of venture capital firms dedicated to climate change have emerged during the last few years, including Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Congruent Ventures, Energy Impact Partners, G2VP, Greentown Labs, Lowercarbon Capital, and Powerhouse.

The field is also drawing heavy investment from generalist venture capital firms like Softback, Founders Fund, Sequoia Capital, Y Combinator, and the two firms most closely associated with the first clean-tech boom and bust, Kleiner Perkins and Khosla Ventures. Union Square Ventures is raising a dedicated climate fund of $100 to $200 million, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month.

And corporations themselves have launched their own funds, including Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund, Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund, and Unilever’s Climate & Nature Fund.

Emily Kirsch, founder and chief executive of Oakland-based Powerhouse, says that Biden’s arrival in the White House could immediately boost the market for electric cars, batteries, and charging infrastructure. During the campaign, the president-elect pledged to sign a series of “day one” executive orders, including ones that would raise fuel economy standards and steer hundreds of billions in annual government spending toward clean power and vehicles, she notes.

Emily Kirsch, founder and chief executive of Oakland-based Powerhouse.
COURTESY: POWERHOUSE

The administration’s goal of installing 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines within five years, in part by opening up federal lands for such developments, will also significantly expand the US market for renewables. And the plan to create a new Energy Department moonshot research program focused on climate, known as ARPA-C, could accelerate advances in green hydrogen, long-duration energy storage, and cleaner ways of producing steel, concrete, and chemicals, Kirsch says.

What has changed

But how different will things be this time around?

Varun Sivaram, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy and one of the authors of the MIT report, says there are several ways that investors can avoid the previous mistakes. They can invest at later stages, when the technological risk has been addressed; focus on digital and software opportunities that don’t require the buildout of massive factories or plants; adopt an investment model that doesn’t count on returns as rapidly; and look for technologies that slot into, rather than compete against, existing ways of manufacturing products.

All these things are happening to various degrees.

Bill Gates’s $1 billion Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund—which includes investments from two of the most prominent VCs of the last boom, John Doerr and Vinod Khosla—invests on 20-year cycles. Likewise, MIT’s “tough tech” incubator, The Engine, doesn’t count on earning its money back for 12 to 18 years.

The current investment cycle is also far more diversified.

While the first boom was primarily about cleaning up the power sector and early efforts to address transportation—and was particularly concentrated on thin-film solar, electric cars, and advanced biofuels—venture capital is now ranging more widely. VCs are funding protein-replacement companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods; startups developing cleaner ways of producing cement and steel, like CarbonCure Technologies and Boston Metal; businesses working on carbon removal and recycling, like Climeworks and Opus 12; companies supporting the creation of carbon offsets and markets, like Pachama, Indigo Ag, and Nori; and those offering ways to reduce the wildfire risks associated with climate change, such as Zonehaven, Buzz Solutions, and Overstory.

New boom, new risks

Every investor interviewed for this piece stressed that the technologies have matured, the market is now ripe for these companies, and the hard-won lessons from the last bust have been internalized.

But each new boom invariably creates excessive hype around certain sectors and players, and ultimately reveals deeper market pitfalls than were obvious at the start.

Some risks are already clear. The fragile economy could still take a deeper dive or require a long time to really recover, potentially limiting the availability of capital for major investments and projects. In addition, powerful incumbent fossil-fuel players will continue to battle hard to retain their market dominance, and plenty of groups and politicians will keep up the fight against ambitious climate policies.

And it would take a lot of costly supporting infrastructure to make some of these bets really pay off, like pipelines to transport captured carbon dioxide or a modernized grid to accommodate rising shares of renewable power.

Sivaram says that certain markets might already be getting a little frothy, including those for electric vehicles. Some of the investments going into carbon-removal and carbon-market startups have also raised eyebrows among close observers of those spaces.

The bigger risk, however, is still that promising technologies won’t get the early funding they need to develop into successful businesses, Sivaram adds.

With most VCs again avoiding long-term investments this time around and steering clearer from technical risks, increasingly generous public funding will be needed to ensure the breakthroughs that will drive costs down further and fill in some of the critical gaps in clean energy. Whether Biden can direct enough federal money to seed the marketplace with the next generation of startups could be one of the crucial factors determining how sustainable and long-lasting this boom will be.

Read more

Wondering how to set up Instagram guides? Want to curate catalog-like collections of content on Instagram? In this article, you’ll learn how to create Instagram guides and discover examples you can model to promote your business with Instagram guides. What Are Instagram Guides? Instagram guides were initially introduced in mid-2020 and limited to the health […]

The post How to Create Instagram Guides: Step-by-Step Setup appeared first on Social Media Examiner | Social Media Marketing.

Read more
1 2,548 2,549 2,550 2,551 2,552 2,680