MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026406760 · doi:10.4061/2011/539762

On the Involvement of Copper Binding to the N‐Terminus of the Amyloid Beta Peptide of Alzheimer′s Disease: A Computational Study on Model Systems

2011· article· en· W2026406760 on OpenAlexafffund
Samira Azimi, Arvi Rauk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsPeptideCopperBinding affinitiesAffinitiesAmyloid betaChemistryAmideCrystallographyStereochemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density functional and second order Moller-Plesset perturbation theoretical methods, coupled with a polarizable continuum model of water, were applied to determine the structures, binding affinities, and reduction potentials of Cu(II) and Cu(I) bound to models of the Asp1, Ala2, His6, and His13His14 regions of the amyloid beta peptide of Alzheimer's disease. The results indicate that the N-terminal Asp binds to Cu(II) together with His6 and either His13 or His14 to form the lower pH Component I of Aβ. Component II of Aβ is the complex between Cu(II) and His6, His13, and His14, to which an amide O (of Ala2) is also coordinated. Asp1 does not bind to Cu(II) if three His residues are attached nor to any Cu(I) species to which one or more His residues are bound. The most stable Cu(I) species is one in which Cu(I) bridges the N(δ) of His13 and His14 in a linear fashion. Cu(I) binds more strongly to Aβ than does Cu(II). The computed reduction potential that closely matches the experimental value for Cu(II)/Aβ corresponds to reduction of Component II (without Ala2) to the Cu(I) complex after endergonic attachment of His6.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207