Backbone Structure Confirmation and Side Chain Conformation Refinement of a Bradykinin Mimic BKM-824 by Comparing Calculated<sup>1</sup>H,<sup>13</sup>C and<sup>19</sup>F Chemical Shifts with Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calculated and experimental (1)H, (13)C and (19)F chemical shifts were compared in BKM-824, a cyclic bradykinin antagonist mimic, c[Ava(1)-Igl(2)-Ser(3)-DF5F(4)-Oic(5)-Arg(6)] (Ava=5-aminovaleric acid, Igl=alpha-(2-indanyl)glycine, DF5F=pentafluorophenylalanine, Oic=(2S,3aS,7aS)-octahydroindole-2-carboxylic acid). The conformation of BKM-824 has been studied earlier by NMR spectroscopy (M. Miskolzie et al., J. Biomolec. Struct. Dyn. 17, 947-955 (2000)). All NMR structures have qualitatively the same backbone structure but there is considerable variation in the side chain conformations. We have carried out quantum mechanical optimization for three representative NMR structures at the B3LYP/6-31G* level, constraining the backbone dihedral angles at their NMR structure values, followed by NMR chemical shift calculations at the optimized structures with the 6-311G** basis set. There is an intramolecular hydrogen bond at Ser(3) in the optimized structures. The experimental (13)C chemical shifts at five C(alpha) positions as well as at the Cbeta, Cgamma and Cdelta position of Ava(1), which forms part of the backbone, are well reproduced by the calculations, confirming the NMR backbone structure. A comparison between the calculated and experimental H(beta) chemical shifts in Igl(2) shows that the dominant conformation at this residue is gauche. Changes of proton chemical shifts with the scan of the chi(1) angle in DF5F(4) suggest that chi(1)180 degrees. The calculated (1)H and (13)C chemical shifts are in good agreement with experiment at the rigid residue Oic(5). None of the models gives accurate results for Arg(6), presumably because of its positive charge. Our study indicates that calculated NMR shifts can be used as additional constraints in conjunction with NMR data to determine protein conformations. However, to be computationally effective, a database of chemical shifts in small peptide fragments should be precalculated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".