MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022407454 · doi:10.1021/bi026004t

Structure of Rhodopsin in Monolayers at the Air−Water Interface:  a PM-IRRAS and X-Ray Reflectivity Study

2002· article· en· W2022407454 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Lavoie, Bernard Desbat, David Vaknin, Christian Salesse

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhodopsinMonolayerChemistryCrystallographyMembraneAbsorption spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monomolecular films of the membrane protein rhodopsin have been investigated in situ at the air-water interface by polarization modulation infrared reflection absorption spectroscopy (PM-IRRAS) and X-ray reflectivity in order to find conditions that retain the protein secondary structure. The spreading of rhodopsin at 0 or 5 mN m(-1) followed by a 30 min incubation time at 21 degrees C resulted in the unfolding of rhodopsin, as evidenced from the large increase of its molecular area, its small monolayer thickness, and the extensive formation of beta-sheets at the expense of the alpha-helices originally present in rhodopsin. In contrast, when spreading is performed at 5 or 10 mN m(-1) followed by an immediate compression at, respectively, 4 or 21 degrees C, the secondary structure of rhodopsin is retained, and the thickness of these films is in good agreement with the size of rhodopsin determined from its crystal structure. The amide I/amide II ratio also allowed to determine that the orientation of rhodopsin only slightly changes with surface pressure and it remains almost unchanged when the film is maintained at 20 mN m(-1) for 120 min at 4 degrees C. In addition, the PM-IRRAS spectra of rod outer segment disk membranes in monolayers suggest that rhodopsin also retained its secondary structure in these films.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207