MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970248675 · doi:10.1021/ac1029874

Nanopore Analysis of β-Amyloid Peptide Aggregation Transition Induced by Small Molecules

2011· article· en· W1970248675 on OpenAlexaff
Haiyan Wang, Yi‐Lun Ying, Li Yang, Heinz‐Bernhard Kraatz, Yi‐Tao Long

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPeptideAmyloid (mycology)BiophysicsFibrilCongo redNanoporeMonomerHydrogen bondMoleculeCrystallographyBiochemistryNanotechnologyPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

β-Amyloid 42 (Aβ42) is the predominant form of the amyloid peptide, which is found in the plaques of the brains of Alzheimer's (AD) patients and is one of the most abundant components in amyloid aggregates. Information of the Aβ42 aggregation states is essential for developing an understanding of the pathologic process of amyloidoses. Here, we used α-hemolysin (α-HL) pores to probe the different aggregation transition of Aβ42 in the presence of β-cyclodextrin (β-CD), a promoter of Aβ42 aggregations, and in the presence of Congo red (CR), an inhibitor of aggregations. Analyzing the characteristic transit duration times and blockade currents showed that β-CD and CR have opposite effects on the aggregation of Aβ42. Translocation events of the monomeric Aβ42 peptide were significantly lower in amplitude currents than protofilaments, and protofilaments were captured in the α-HL nanopore with a longer duration time. CR binds to Aβ42 and its peptide fibrils by reducing the aggregated fibrils formation. In this process it is assumed CR interferes with intermolecular hydrogen bonding present in the aggregates. In contrast to CR, β-CD promotes the aggregation of Aβ42. These differences can readily be analyzed by monitoring the corresponding characteristic blockade events using a biological α-HL nanopore.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations158
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicNanopore and Nanochannel Transport StudiesFrench-language works237,207