Secondary Structural Analysis of the Na<sup>+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>-ATPase and its Na<sup>+</sup>(E<sub>1</sub>) and K<sup>+</sup>(E<sub>2</sub>) Complexes by FTIR Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Na(+),K(+)-ATPase is an integral membrane protein which transports sodium and potassium cations against an electrochemical gradient. The transport of Na(+) and K(+) ions is presumably connected to an oscillation of the enzyme between the two conformational states, the E(1) (Na(+)) and the E(2) (K(+)) conformations. The E(1) and E(2) states have different affinities for ligand interaction. However, the determination of the secondary structure of this enzyme in its sodium and potassium forms has been the subject of much controversy. This study was designed to provide a quantitative analysis of the secondary structure of the Na(+),K(+)-ATPase in its sodium (E(1)) and potassium (E(2)) states in both H(2)O and D(2)O solutions at physiological pH, using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) with its self-deconvolution and second derivative resolution enhancement methods, as well as curve-fitting procedures. Spectroscopic analysis showed that the secondary structure of the sodium salt of the Na(+),K(+)-ATPase in H(2)O solution contains alpha-helix 19.8+/-1%, beta-sheet 25.6+/-1%, turn 9.1+/-1%, and beta-anti 7.5+/-1%, whereas in D(2)O solution, the enzyme shows alpha-helix 16.8+/-1%, beta-sheet 24.5+/-1.5%, turn 10.9+/-1%, beta-anti 9.8+/-1%, and random coil 38.0+/-2%. Similarly, the potassium salt in H(2)O solution contains alpha-helix 16.6+/-1%, beta-sheet 26.4+/-1.5%, turn 8.9+/-1%, and beta-anti 8.1+/-1%, while in D(2)O solution it shows alpha-helix 16.2+/-1%, beta-sheet 24.5+/-1.5%, turn 10.3+/-1%, beta-anti 9.0+/-1%, and random coil 40+/-2%. Thus the main differences for the sodium and potassium forms of the Na(+),K(+)-ATPase are alpha-helix 3.2% in H(2)O and 0.6% in D(2)O, beta-sheet (pleated and anti) 1.5% in H(2)O and random structure 2% (D(2)O), while for other minor components (turn structure), the differences are less than 1%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".