MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026144108 · doi:10.1103/physreve.80.061909

Length-dependent force characteristics of coiled coils

2009· article· en· W2026144108 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Sadeghi, Eldon Emberly

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsStatistical physicsCondensed matter physicsMaterials scienceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coiled-coil domains within and between proteins play important structural roles in biology. They consist of two or more alpha helices that form a superhelical structure due to packing of the hydrophobic residues that pattern each helix. A recent continuum model showed that the correspondence between the chirality of the pack to that of the underlying hydrophobic pattern comes about because of the internal deformation energy associated with each helix in forming the superhelix. We have developed a coarse-grained atomistic model for coiled coils that includes the competition between the hydrophobic energy that drives folding and the cost due to deforming each helix. The model exhibits a structural transition from a non-coiled-coil to coiled-coil state as the contribution from the deformation energy changes. Our model is able to reproduce naturally occurring coiled coils and essential features seen in unzipping experiments. We explore the force-extension properties of these model coiled coils as a function helix length and find that shorter coils unfold at lower force than longer ones with the required unfolding force eventually becoming length independent.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207