MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997475196 · doi:10.1103/physreve.84.031922

Tuning the performance of an artificial protein motor

2011· article· en· W1997475196 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan J. Kuwada, Martin J. Zuckermann, Elizabeth H. C. Bromley, Richard B. Sessions, Paul M. G. Curmi, Nancy R. Forde, Derek N. Woolfson, Heiner Linke

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of BristolMichael Smith Health Research BCNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceMolecular motorContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Function (biology)Motion (physics)Linear motorControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceEngineeringNanotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tumbleweed (TW) is a concept for an artificial, tri-pedal, protein-based motor designed to move unidirectionally along a linear track by a diffusive tumbling motion. Artificial motors offer the unique opportunity to explore how motor performance depends on design details in a way that is open to experimental investigation. Prior studies have shown that TW's ability to complete many successive steps can be critically dependent on the motor's diffusional step time. Here, we present a simulation study targeted at determining how to minimize the diffusional step time of the TW motor as a function of two particular design choices: nonspecific motor-track interactions and molecular flexibility. We determine an optimal nonspecific interaction strength and establish a set of criteria for optimal molecular flexibility as a function of the nonspecific interaction. We discuss our results in the context of similarities to biological, linear stepping diffusive molecular motors with the aim of identifying general engineering principles for protein motors.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207