MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W107691329 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.21.5.a39-e

Seeing the Invisible by Solution NMR Spectroscopy

2007· article· en· W107691329 on OpenAlexaff
Lewis E. Kay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolding (DSP implementation)ChemistryNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyProtein foldingCharacterization (materials science)Ligand (biochemistry)NanotechnologyMaterials scienceStereochemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many biochemical processes proceed through the formation of functionally important intermediates. For example, ligand binding, enzyme catalysis and protein folding may all involve the formation of one or more intermediates along the reaction coordinate connecting the initial and final protein states. A complete understanding of each process, requires, therefore, characterization of these intermediates in detail. While methods exist for studying the endpoints of these processes at atomic resolution in many cases, similar studies of the intermediates remain elusive. NMR methods for seeing such ‘invisible’ states will be described, along with a number of applications to protein folding illustrating the power of the methodology. A related problem is one where ‘near invisible’ systems are studied by solution NMR, such as supra‐molecular structures, with molecular weights in the MDa range. New labeling approaches and NMR experiments will be described that bring such systems into focus and applications to the ClpP protease and the proteasome will be presented.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicProtein Structure and Dynamics→French-language works237,207→