MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989058649 · doi:10.5779/hypothesis.v5i1.62

Environmental Factors can Modify Genotype Risks by Slight Changes in Protein Conformation: The Role of Water

2008· article· en· W1989058649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahram Shahabi, Zuhair Muhammad Hassan, Nima Hosseini Jazani, Massoumeh Ebtekar

Bibliographic record

VenueHypothesis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypeChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biological systems, water is not simply arranged, but is highly structured. Interactions between structured water and proteins have an important role in the preservation of protein conformation, which is vital for their proper function. Any agent that can exert a direct effect on an organism might also change the structure of water molecules, resulting in slight changes in protein conformation. In disease states, these changes could efficiently target the proteins that are products of mutated genes, but display normal, or approximately normal, functions in a normal environment. Physiological compensatory agents such as stress proteins can correct abnormal protein conformation. However, if slightly altered conformations of proteins (due to altered water structure) persist, they may not be able to be restructured by stress proteins, resulting in abnormal protein function. The purpose of this paper is to provide a hypothesis for a mechanism through which protein structure and function is modulated by altering the surrounding water microenvironment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypothesisSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207