MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1852791087 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m114.622522

Distortion of the Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Binding Groove to Accommodate an Insulin-derived 10-Mer Peptide

2015· article· en· W1852791087 on OpenAlexaff
Chihiro Motozono, James A. Pearson, Evy De Leenheer, P.J. Rizkallah, Konrad Beck, Andrew Trimby, Andrew K. Sewell, F. Susan Wong, David K. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsMajor histocompatibility complexGroove (engineering)PeptideDistortion (music)InsulinClass (philosophy)ChemistryComputer scienceBiologyCell biologyBiochemistryMaterials scienceEndocrinologyTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The non-obese diabetic mouse model of type 1 diabetes continues to be an important tool for delineating the role of T-cell-mediated destruction of pancreatic β-cells. However, little is known about the molecular mechanisms that enable this disease pathway. We show that insulin reactivity by a CD8(+) T-cell clone, known to induce type 1 diabetes, is characterized by weak T-cell antigen receptor binding to a relatively unstable peptide-MHC. The structure of the native 9- and 10-mer insulin epitopes demonstrated that peptide residues 7 and 8 form a prominent solvent-exposed bulge that could potentially be the main focus of T-cell receptor binding. The C terminus of the peptide governed peptide-MHC stability. Unexpectedly, we further demonstrate a novel mode of flexible peptide presentation in which the MHC peptide-binding groove is able to "open the back door" to accommodate extra C-terminal peptide residues.

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)0.001
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207