MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995802657 · doi:10.1002/bip.20299

Fourier transform infrared/vibrational circular dichroism spectroscopy as an informative tool for the investigation of large supramolecular complexes of biological macromolecules

2005· article· en· W1995802657 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Polyanichko, H. Wieser

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopolymers · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCircular dichroismDNAMacromoleculeCrystallographySupramolecular chemistryInfrared spectroscopyPhotochemistryBiophysicsBiochemistryOrganic chemistryCrystal structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A combination of ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) absorption and circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy was applied to investigate the structure and formation of large supramolecular DNA–protein complexes. This combination of techniques was used to overcome limitations of UV‐CD (electronic, or ECD) spectroscopy due to considerable light scattering in such solutions. Based on the analysis of FTIR and UV‐CD spectra, the interaction of DNA with nonhistone chromatin protein HMGB1 and linker histone H1 was studied. The data obtained showed that under the conditions of the experiment (15 m M NaCl, protein/DNA ratio r < 1 w/w) the proteins did not reveal any AT or GC specificity in binding to DNA. In the presence of both proteins, mainly interactions in the DNA minor groove were observed, which were attributed to HMGB1 binding. Histone H1 facilitated binding of HMGB1 to DNA by interacting with the negatively charged groups of the sugar–phosphate backbone and binding of aspartic and glutamic amino acid residues of HMGB1. Acting together, HMGB1 and H1 stimulated the assemblage of supramolecular DNA–protein structures. The structural organization of the ternary complexes depended not only on the properties of the protein–DNA interactions but also on the interactions between HMGB1 and H1 molecules. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers 78: 329–339, 2005 This article was originally published online as an accepted preprint. The “Published Online” date corresponds to the preprint version. You can request a copy of the preprint by emailing the Biopolymers editorial office at biopolymers@wiley.com

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiopolymersSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207