MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964307492 · doi:10.1021/ac901373q

Method for the Affinity Purification of Covalently Linked Peptides Following Cyanogen Bromide Cleavage of Proteins

2009· article· en· W1964307492 on OpenAlexaff
Tujin Shi, Rasanjala Weerasekera, Yan Chen, William Reginold, Haydn L. Ball, Thomas Kislinger, Gerold Schmitt‐Ulms

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsCyanogen bromideChemistryCovalent bondCyanogenCleavage (geology)Affinity chromatographyCombinatorial chemistryChromatographyChemical modificationPeptideTandem mass spectrometryPeptide sequenceMass spectrometryBiochemistryOrganic chemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The low resolution structure of a protein can sometimes be inferred from information about existing disulfide bridges or experimentally introduced chemical crosslinks. Frequently, this task involves enzymatic digestion of a protein followed by mass spectrometry-based identification of covalently linked peptides. To facilitate this task, we developed a method for the enrichment of covalently linked peptides following the chemical cleavage of a protein. The method capitalizes on the availability of homoserine lactone moieties at the C-termini of cyanogen bromide cleavage products which support selective conjugation of affinity tags. The availability of two C-termini within covalently linked peptides allows for the conjugation of two distinct affinity tags and thereby enables subsequent removal of unmodified peptides by tandem affinity chromatography. Here, we demonstrate the stepwise implementation of this method using a polyhistidine tag and a biotin tag for the selective two-step purification of covalently linked cyanogen bromide fragments from increasingly complex protein samples. The method is independent of the nature of the covalent bond, is adaptable to fully denaturing conditions, and requires only low picomole quantities of starting material.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207