MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025410059 · doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2010.06.008

High-throughput production of human proteins for crystallization: The SGC experience

2010· article· en· W2025410059 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. Savitsky, James E. Bray, C.D.O. Cooper, Brian D. Marsden, P. Mahajan, N. Burgess-Brown, O. Gileadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseKarolinska InstitutetStiftelsen för Strategisk ForskningOntario Innovation TrustWellcome TrustNovartis FoundationGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsCrystallizationThroughputProduction (economics)ChemistryComputational biologyCell biologyComputer scienceBiologyOrganic chemistryOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producing purified human proteins with high yield and purity remains a considerable challenge. We describe the methods utilized in the Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) in Oxford, resulting in successful purification of 48% of human proteins attempted; of those, the structures of approximately 40% were solved by X-ray crystallography. The main driver has been the parallel processing of multiple (typically 9-20) truncated constructs of each target; modest diversity in vectors and host systems; and standardized purification procedures. We provide method details as well as data on the properties of the constructs leading to crystallized proteins and the impact of methodological variants. These can be used to formulate guidelines for initial approaches to expression of new eukaryotic proteins.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations352
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural BiologySame topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207