MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014977839 · doi:10.1021/jp8094227

Free Energy Barrier Estimation for the Dissociation of Charged Protein Complexes in the Gas Phase

2009· article· en· W2014977839 on OpenAlexafffund
Surajith N. Wanasundara, Mark Thachuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDissociation (chemistry)Gas phaseChemistryChemical physicsMaterials sciencePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free energies are calculated for the protonated cytochrome c' dimer ion in the gas phase as a function of the center of mass distance between the monomers. A number of different charge partitionings are examined as well as the behavior of the neutral complex. It is found that monomer unfolding competes with complex dissociation and that the relative importance of these two factors depends upon the charge partitioning in the complex. Symmetric charge partitionings preferentially suppress the dissociation barrier relative to unfolding, and complexes tend to dissociate promptly with little structural changes occurring in the monomers. Alternatively, asymmetric charge partitionings preferentially lower the barrier for monomer unfolding relative to the dissociation barrier. In this case, the monomer with the higher charge unfolds before the complex dissociates. For the homodimer considered here, this pathway has a large free energy barrier. The results can be rationalized using schematic two-dimensional free energy surfaces. Additionally, for large multimeric complexes, it is argued that the unfolding and subsequent charging of a single monomer is a favorable process, cooperatively lowering both the unfolding and dissociation barriers at the same time.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207