MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777472295 · doi:10.1039/c5an00843c

Comparing equilibrium and kinetic protein unfolding using time-resolved electrospray-coupled ion mobility mass spectrometry

2015· article· en· W1777472295 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Liuni, Bin Deng, Derek J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Public Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIon-mobility spectrometryChemistryMass spectrometryKinetic energyElectrosprayIonAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein unfolding intermediates are thought to play a critical role in conformational pathogenesis, acting as a 'gateway' to inactivation or pathogenic aggregation. Unfolding intermediates have long been studied either by populating partially-folded species at equilibrium using incresingly denaturing conditions, or by transiently populating 'kinetic' intermediates under fully denaturing conditions using a time-resolved approach (e.g. stopped-flow fluorescence). However, it is not clear that the folding intermediates populated under equilibrium conditions are comparable to intermediates transiently populated in kinetic experiments. In this work, we combine time-resolved electrospray (TRESI) with travelling wave Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS) for the first time to directly compare equilibrium and kinetic unfolding intermediates of cytochrome c. Our results show a high degree of correlation between all species populated under these substantially different regimes.

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)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207