Oligosaccharide–Protein Interactions: A Three‐Dimensional View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For carbohydrates to serve as recognition elements in cellular function, there must be 'receptors' which are capable of distinguishing between the multitude of oligosaccharide structures generated by a cell. Generally these receptors are assumed to be proteins, and the plant lectins have been used as model systems to examine the molecular basis for specificity in such interactions. Three aspects of the specificity of oligosaccharide-protein interactions will be discussed: (1) the conformational flexibility of oligosaccharides will be demonstrated through a quantitative analysis of nuclear magnetic resonance measurements; (2) a comparison of the measured and calculated values for the entropy barrier to oligosaccharide binding will be used to argue that the barrier arises from a loss of this conformational flexibility upon binding to the lectin (this conclusion is also supported by X-ray crystallographic studies); and (3) the thermodynamic model can be extended to the binding of glycoproteins to receptors and the high affinity of these interactions explained by either multivalency or fixation of the oligosaccharide in the 'correct' three-dimensional structure through interaction with the protein moiety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".