MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1619114523 · doi:10.1063/1.1302851

Two-dimensional cross correlation analysis of protein unfolding: Portrayal of the thermal denaturation of CMP kinases in the absence and presence of substrates

2000· article· en· W1619114523 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenaturation (fissile materials)KinaseNucleotideEnzymeProtein secondary structureBacillus subtilisBiochemistryChemistryPhosphatePhosphorylationEscherichia coliBiophysicsBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The functional role of CMP kinases is to regenerate mono-phosphate nucleotides in cells by transferring phosphate residues from tri-phosphorylated nucleotides to monophosphorylated nucleotides. These enzymes possess two binding sites and maintain a highly conserved secondary structure. They are essential for cell survival. Herein we compare the infrared spectra of two similar, but not identical enzymes, the CMP kinases from Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. A two-dimensional cross correlation analysis of the infrared spectra reveals differences in the denaturation behavior of the two proteins. Different secondary structure elements show different time-delayed or advanced unfolding events in the two enzymes. When bound to the active sites, the two nucleotide-substrates CMP and ATP exert a stabilizing effect on the structure of both proteins. The changes observed upon thermal denaturation are different for the two enzymes. Model 2D correlations are used to simulate the different denaturation of the two enzymes. Thermal denaturation and aggregation can be distinguished as two processes separated in time.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207