MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975564068 · doi:10.1021/ct800384h

Conformational Studies of Methyl β-<scp>d</scp>-Arabinofuranoside Using the AMBER/GLYCAM Approach

2009· article· en· W1975564068 on OpenAlexaff
Hashem A. Taha, Norberto Castillo, Pierre–Nicholas Roy, Todd L. Lowary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCarbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Glycomics CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformational isomerismSolvationRing (chemistry)ChemistryMolecular dynamicsHydroxymethylComputational chemistryMoleculePopulationCrystallographyStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Furanosides are important constituents of a number of glycoconjugates from many microorganisms. The highly flexible nature of these furanosyl moieties is believed to contribute significantly to their role in biological processes. Therefore, an understanding of the conformational preferences of these molecules is an important area of research. As part of a larger program involved in the conformational analysis of mycobacterial oligofuranosides, molecular dynamics simulations on methyl β-d-arabinofuranoside (3) have been carried out using the AMBER forcefield and the GLYCAM carbohydrate parameter set. This approach was used to predict the rotamer population distribution about the hydroxymethyl group (C4-C5 bond) as well as the ring puckering of this flexible ring system. Comparison of the conformer distributions obtained during the simulation of 3 using the TIP3P water model with those obtained by analysis of (1)H-(1)H coupling constant data indicated that this water model was insufficient to describe the solvation of this system. However, the use of the TIP4P and TIP5P models led to improved agreement with conformer populations obtained from NMR data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicCarbohydrate Chemistry and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207