Comparison of Protein Surface Hydrophobicity Measured at Various pH Values Using Three Different Fluorescent Probes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of type of fluorescent probe on the surface hydrophobicity values determined for three native and heated proteins was assessed using uncharged [6-propionyl-2-(N, N-dimethylamino)naphthalene or PRODAN] versus anionic aliphatic (cis-parinaric acid or CPA) and aromatic (1-anilinonaphthalene-8-sulfonic acid or ANS) probes. Surface hydrophobicities of whey protein isolate, beta-lactoglobulin, and bovine serum albumin under heated (80 degrees C for 30 min) and unheated conditions and at varying pH values (3.0, 5.0, 7.0, and 9. 0) were measured using ANS, CPA, and PRODAN. ANS and CPA yielded opposing results for the effects of pH and heating on protein hydrophobicity. Hydrophobicity was lower at pH 3.0 than at other pH values for all proteins measured by PRODAN, whereas the values measured by ANS and CPA at pH 3.0 were quite high compared to those at other pH values, suggesting the influence of electrostatic interactions on anionic probe-protein binding. These results suggest that the presence or absence of a permanent charge as well as the aromatic and aliphatic nature of fluorescent probes can affect protein hydrophobicity values measured under various pH conditions.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it