MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003679623 · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.031906

Relationship between the unbinding and main transition temperatures of phospholipid bilayers under pressure

2004· article· en· W2003679623 on OpenAlexaff
Thad A. Harroun, Mu‐Ping Nieh, M. Watson, V. A. Raghunathan, Georg Pabst, Michael R. Morrow, John Katsaras

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwellingHydrostatic pressurePhospholipidMaterials scienceNeutron diffractionHydrostatic equilibriumCrystallographyThermodynamicsChemistryMembranePhysicsComposite materialCrystal structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using neutron diffraction and a specially constructed high pressure cell suitable for aligned multibilayer systems, we have studied, as a function of pressure, the much observed anomalous swelling regime in dimyristoyl- and dilauroyl-phosphatidylcholine bilayers, DMPC and DLPC, respectively. We have also reanalyzed data from a number of previously published experiments and have arrived at the following conclusions. (a). The power law behavior describing anomalous swelling is preserved in all PC bilayers up to a hydrostatic pressure of 240 MPa. (b). As a function of increasing pressure there is a concomitant decrease in the anomalous swelling of DMPC bilayers. (c). For PC lipids with hydrocarbon chains >or=13 carbons the theoretical unbinding transition temperature T small star, filled is coupled to the main gel-to-liquid crystalline transition temperature T(M). (d). DLPC is intrinsically different from the other lipids studied in that its T small star, filled is not coupled to T(M). (e). For DLPC bilayers we predict a hydrostatic pressure (>290 MPa) where unbinding may occur.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207