MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037296132 · doi:10.1071/ch13164

Chemical Cross-linking and Mass Spectrometry for the Structural Analysis of Protein Assemblies

2013· article· en· W2037296132 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio N. Calabrese, Tara L. Pukala

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsThe Audio Recording Academy
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsMass spectrometryChemistryStructural biologyFolding (DSP implementation)Computational biologyProtein structureBiochemical engineeringFunction (biology)Protein foldingNanotechnologyBiochemistryChromatographyMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellular functions are performed and regulated at a molecular level by the coordinated action of intricate protein assemblies, and hence the study of protein folding, structure, and interactions is vital to the appreciation and understanding of complex biological problems. In the past decade, continued development of chemical cross-linking methodologies combined with mass spectrometry has seen this approach develop to enable detailed structural information to be elucidated for protein assemblies often intractable by traditional structural biology methods. In this review article, we describe recent advances in reagent design, cross-linking protocols, mass spectrometric analysis, and incorporation of cross-linking constraints into structural models, which are contributing to overcoming the intrinsic challenges of the cross-linking method. We also highlight pioneering applications of chemical cross-linking mass spectrometry approaches to the study of structure and function of protein assemblies.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207