MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023161546 · doi:10.5339/qfarf.2012.aesnp18

Insights into the mechanism of function of a protein unfolding and degradation system

2012· article· en· W2023161546 on OpenAlexaff
Walid A. Houry

Bibliographic record

VenueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeptidase Inhibition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteasesProteaseChaperone (clinical)Serine proteaseBiochemistryChemistryCell biologyAAA proteinsProtein degradationBiophysicsEnzymeBiologyATPase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ClpP is a cylindrical tetradecameric serine protease whose activity is regulated by the unfoldase ATP-dependent chaperones ClpX and ClpA of the AAA+ superfamily. The chaperones act to select substrate proteins, unfold them, and then thread them into the ClpP cylinder for degradation. ClpP can only degrade small peptides on its own. Structural and functional studies from my group have elucidated the mechanism of function of the ClpXP chaperone-protease system. These studies highlighted the importance of protein dynamics in this system. More recently, we used ClpP as a target in a high-throughput screen for compounds, which activate the protease and allow it to degrade larger proteins, hence, abolishing the specificity arising from the ATP-dependent chaperones. Our screen resulted in five structurally distinct compounds, which we designate as activators of self-compartmentalizing proteases 1 to 5 (ACP 1 to 5). The compounds are found to stabilize the ClpP double ring structure. The ACP1 chemical structure was considered to have drug-like characteristics and was further optimized to give analogs with bactericidal activity. Hence, the ACPs represent new classes of compounds that can activate ClpP and that can be developed as potential novel antibiotics.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1Same topicPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207