MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016591615 · doi:10.1002/mas.10012

Proteins <i>in vacuo</i>: Denaturing and folding mechanisms studied with computer‐simulated molecular dynamics

2001· review· en· W2016591615 on OpenAlex
Gustavo A. Arteca, C. T. Reimann, O. Tapia

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMass Spectrometry Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryMetastabilityFolding (DSP implementation)Protein foldingMolecular dynamicsContext (archaeology)AnhydrousChemical physicsIonBiological systemNanotechnologyComputational chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I. Introduction 402 II. Experiments and Simulations: Background 403 III. Unfolding Studies 406 A. Centrifugal Unfolding of Neutral Proteins 407 B. Unfolding by Coulombic Repulsion 409 C. Unfolding by Screened van der Waals Attraction 411 IV. Refolding Studies 412 V. Closing Remarks 414 VI. Acknowledgments 415 Appendix 1. Molecular Shape Descriptors for Protein Backbones 416 Appendix 2. MD Simulations 417 References 419 Mounting evidence from experiments suggests that the native fold in solution is metastable in dehydrated proteins. Results from a number of experiments that use mass spectrometry indicate also that folding–unfolding transitions take place in protein ions even in the absence of water. These observations on anhydrous proteins call for a re‐evaluation of our understanding of the folding transition. In this context, computer‐assisted simulations are an important complementary tool. Here, we provide an overview of recent progress on the simulation of proteins in vacuo . In particular, we discuss the response of proteins and protein ions to perturbations that trigger unfolding and re‐folding transitions. By comparing the general patterns emerging from theory and experiment, we propose a series of new measurements that could help to validate, and improve, current simulation models. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Mass Spec Rev 20:402–422, 2001; Published online in Wiley InterScience ( www.interscience.wiley.com ). DOI 10.1002/mas.10012

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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