MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033140700 · doi:10.1107/s1399004714017271

A case study on the treatment of protein SIRAS data

2014· article· en· W2033140700 on OpenAlexafffund
Deqiang Yao, Tao Zhang, Yao He, Pu Han, M.M. Cherney, Yuanxin Gu, Mirosław Cygler, Hai-fu Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhaserExtension (predicate logic)Anomalous scatteringAlgorithmDerivative (finance)Pipeline (software)Computer scienceDirect methodsData setResolution (logic)Experimental dataSet (abstract data type)DiffractionMathematicsCrystallographyOpticsPhysicsChemistryArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case study has been made on the treatment of the SIRAS (single isomorphous replacement with anomalous scattering) data of the originally unknown protein LegC3N. An alternative treatment has been proposed which led to improved results in this particular test case. The treatment involves iterative direct-method SAD (single-wavelength anomalous diffraction) phasing and direct-method-aided model completion, both of which are implanted in the IPCAS (Iterative Protein Crystal-structure Automatic Solution) pipeline. Apart from the experimental data, a simulated SIRAS data set for LegC3N with the derivative data truncated to 5.0 Å resolution has also been tested. SAD phasing and phase/model extension in PHENIX without direct methods failed to solve the structure using these simulated SIRAS data. However, the procedure proposed here involving direct methods in both SAD phasing and phase/model extension led to a nearly complete structure model. This shows the potential ability of treating SIRAS data with a derivative diffracting to lower resolution.

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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section D Biological CrystallographySame topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207