MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1864324119 · doi:10.1016/s0014-5793(03)00934-7

From the first to the second domain of gelsolin: a common path on the surface of actin?<sup>1</sup>

2003· article· en· W1864324119 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward Irobi, Leslie D. Burtnick, Dunja Urosev, Kartik Narayan, Robert Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationEuropean Synchrotron Radiation FacilityHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsGelsolinActinLinkerProtein filamentMDia1Actin-binding proteinActin remodelingChemistryBiophysicsBiologyCell biologyBiochemistryActin cytoskeletonCytoskeletonCellComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the 2.6 A resolution crystal structure of a complex formed between G-actin and gelsolin fragment Met25-Gln160 (G1+). The structure differs from those of other gelsolin domain 1 (G1) complexes in that an additional six amino acid residues from the crucial linker region into gelsolin domain 2 (G2) are visible and are attached securely to the surface of actin. The linker segment extends away from G1 up the face of actin in a direction that infers G2 will bind along the same long-pitch helical strand as the actin bound to G1. This is consistent with a mechanism whereby G2 attaches gelsolin to the side of a filament and then directs G1 toward a position where it would disrupt actin-actin contacts. Alignment of the sequence of the structurally important residues within the G1-G2 linker with those of WH2 (WASp homology domain 2) domain protein family members (e.g. WASp (Wiscott-Aldridge syndrome protein) and thymosin beta4) suggests that the opposing activities of filament assembly and disassembly may exploit a common patch on the surface of actin.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations45
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207