Structural similarity between β<sup>3</sup>‐peptides synthesized from β<sup>3</sup>‐homo‐amino acids and aspartic acid monomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formation of stable secondary structures by oligomers that mimic natural peptides is a key asset for enhanced biological response. Here we show that oligomeric β(3)-hexapeptides synthesized from L-aspartic acid monomers (β(3)-peptides 1, 5a, and 6) or homologated β(3)-amino acids (β(3)-peptide 2), fold into similar stable 14-helical secondary structures in solution, except that the former form right-handed 14-helix and the later form left-handed 14-helix. β(3)-Peptides from L-Asp monomers contain an additional amide bond in the side chains that provides opportunities for more hydrogen bonding. However, based on the NMR solution structures, we found that β(3)-peptide from L-Asp monomers (1) and from homologated amino acids (2) form similar structures with no additional side-chain interactions. These results suggest that the β(3)-peptides derived from L-Asp are promising peptide-mimetics that can be readily synthesized using L-Asp monomers as well as the right-handed 14-helical conformation of these β(3)-peptides (such as 1 and 6) may prove beneficial in the design of mimics for right-handed α-helix of α-peptides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".