MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034624275 · doi:10.1021/ed082p1805

Analyzing the 3D Structure of Human Carbonic Anhydrase II and Its Mutants Using Deep View and the Protein Data Bank

2005· article· en· W2034624275 on OpenAlexafffund
Noam Ship, Deborah B. Zamble

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsProtein Data BankCarbonic anhydraseRamachandran plotMutantSoftwareChemistryComputer scienceHomology modelingBiomoleculeDomain (mathematical analysis)Carbonic anhydrase IIProtein structureBiochemistryComputational biologyEnzymeBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lab was designed to teach biological chemistry students to critically analyze the 3D structure of a protein. The enzyme studied was human carbonic anhydrase (II) and students also examined mutants and protein bound to a variety of ligands, metals, and inhibitors. The coordinate files for each protein are downloaded by the students from the Protein Data Bank . The structure is viewed and manipulated with the public-domain molecular-viewing software Deep View . Students learn how to interpret Ramachandran plots, study familial homology, make virtual mutations, compare structures, analyze structural details, and produce stunning 3D images. The lab runs on personal computers with Internet access and requires minimal to no supervision. This lab can be used as an independent project or as part of a more comprehensive set of experiments, and it can be adapted to the study of other biomolecules.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207