MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Studies of DNA-Protein Interactions Using FRET Techniques

2009· article· en· W146678022 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Blouin, Timothy D. Craggs, Daniel A. Lafontaine, J. Carlos Penedo

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsFörster resonance energy transferDNANucleic acidComputational biologyBiophysicsNanotechnologyChemistryBiologyBiological systemFluorescenceBiochemistryPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein-DNA interactions underpin life and play key roles in all cellular processes and functions including DNA transcription, packaging, replication, and repair. Identifying and examining the nature of these interactions is therefore a crucial prerequisite to understand the molecular basis of how these fundamental processes take place. The application of fluorescence techniques and in particular fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) to provide structural and kinetic information has experienced a stunning growth during the past decade. This has been mostly promoted by new advances in the preparation of dye-labeled nucleic acids and proteins and in optical sensitivity, where its implementation at the level of individual molecules has opened a new biophysical frontier. Nowadays, the application of FRET-based techniques to the analysis of protein-DNA interactions spans from the classical steady-state and time-resolved methods averaging over large ensembles to the analysis of distances, conformational changes, and enzymatic reactions in individual Protein-DNA complexes. This chapter introduces the practical aspects of applying these methods for the study of Protein-DNA interactions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207