MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998441324 · doi:10.1002/mbo3.72

Topological mapping methods for α‐helical bacterial membrane proteins – an update and a guide

2013· review· en· W1998441324 on OpenAlexafffund
Salim T. Islam, Joseph S. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiologyOpen · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCystic Fibrosis Canada
KeywordsIntegral membrane proteinTransmembrane proteinMembrane proteinComputational biologyFunction (biology)Topology (electrical circuits)MembraneBiologyComputer scienceChemistryCell biologyBiochemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integral membrane proteins with α-helical transmembrane segments (TMS) are known to play important and diverse roles in prokaryotic cell physiology. The net hydrophobicity of TMS directly corresponds to the observed difficulties in expressing and purifying these proteins, let alone producing sufficient yields for structural studies using two-/three-dimensional (2D/3D) crystallographic or nuclear magnetic resonance methods. To gain insight into the function of these integral membrane proteins, topological mapping has become an important tool to identify exposed and membrane-embedded protein domains. This approach has led to the discovery of protein tracts of functional importance and to the proposition of novel mechanistic hypotheses. In this review, we synthesize the various methods available for topological mapping of α-helical integral membrane proteins to provide investigators with a comprehensive reference for choosing techniques suited to their particular topological queries and available resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologyOpenSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207