MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973501824 · doi:10.1080/09687680701496507

Eukaryotic major facilitator superfamily transporter modeling based on the prokaryotic GlpT crystal structure (Review)

2007· review· en· W1973501824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Membrane Biology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmino Acid Enzymes and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMajor facilitator superfamilyTransporterBiologyComputational biologySUPERFAMILYProtein structureBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The major facilitator superfamily (MFS) of transporters represents the largest family of secondary active transporters and has a diverse range of substrates. With structural information for four MFS transporters, we can see a strong structural commonality suggesting, as predicted, a common architecture for MFS transporters. The rate for crystal structure determination of MFS transporters is slow, making modeling of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic transporters more enticing. In this review, models of eukaryotic transporters Glut1, G6PT, OCT1, OCT2 and Pho84, based on the crystal structures of the prokaryotic GlpT, based on the crystal structure of LacY are discussed. The techniques used to generate the different models are compared. In addition, the validity of these models and the strategy of using prokaryotic crystal structures to model eukaryotic proteins are discussed. For comparison, E. coli GlpT was modeled based on the E. coli LacY structure and compared to the crystal structure of GlpT demonstrating that experimental evidence is essential for accurate modeling of membrane proteins.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.263 · 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