MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W148393812 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-762-9:113

Using Light Scattering to Determine the Stoichiometry of Protein Complexes

2004· review· en· W148393812 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Mogridge

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSize-exclusion chromatographyRefractometryMultiangle light scatteringChemistryLight scatteringStoichiometryScatteringChromatographyRefractometerLaserAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Dynamic light scatteringOpticsRefractive indexMaterials sciencePhysicsNanotechnologyBiochemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stoichiometry of a protein complex can be calculated from an accurate measurement of the complex's molecular weight. Multiangle laser light scattering in combination with size-exclusion chromatography and interferometric refractometry provides a powerful means for determining the molecular weights of proteins and protein complexes. In contrast to conventional size-exclusion chromatography and analytical centrifugation, measurements do not rely on the use of molecular weight standards and are not affected by the shape of the proteins. The technique is based on the direct relationship between the amount of light scattered by a protein in solution and the product of its concentration and molecular weight. A typical experimental configuration includes a size-exclusion column to fractionate the sample, a light-scattering detector to measure scattered light, and an interferometric refractometer to measure protein concentration. The determination of the molecular weight of an anthrax toxin complex will be examined to illustrate how multiangle laser light scattering can be used to determine the stoichiometry of protein complexes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207