MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971546597 · doi:10.1002/psc.793

Optimization of the hydrochloric acid concentration used for trifluoroacetate removal from synthetic peptides

2006· article· en· W1971546597 on OpenAlexafffund
Valery Andrushchenko, Hans J. Vogel, Elmar J. Prenner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPeptideChemistryHydrochloric acidAmideTryptophanAbsorption (acoustics)Infrared spectroscopyChromatographyCombinatorial chemistryImpurityAmino acidInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trifluoroacetate (CF3COO-, or TFA) is almost always present in commercially synthesized peptides. Unfortunately, it has a strong infrared (IR) absorption band at 1673 cm-1, significantly overlapping or even completely obscuring the amide I band of a peptide. In such cases TFA must be removed from the solution in order to be able to use IR absorption spectroscopy for peptide secondary structure determination. The most convenient and widely used procedure involves peptide lyophilization from a 0.1 M HCl solution. In our studies of the tryptophan-rich antimicrobial peptide indolicidin, we have found that caution should be taken when using this HCl concentration. High HCl concentrations (>10 mM in unbuffered solutions and > 50 mM in buffered solutions) may modify the peptide structure and reduce its thermal stability, thereby interfering with subsequent structural investigations of the peptide. Our results indicate that HCl concentrations between 2 and 10 mM are adequate to remove essentially all TFA impurities without any modification of the peptide secondary structure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
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

Citations100
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peptide ScienceSame topicAntimicrobial Peptides and ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207