MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040434944 · doi:10.3791/2529

Collecting Variable-concentration Isothermal Titration Calorimetry Datasets in Order to Determine Binding Mechanisms

2011· article· en· W2040434944 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee Freiburger, Anthony Mittermaier, Karine Auclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
Topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsIsothermal titration calorimetryCalorimetryEnthalpyLigand (biochemistry)ThermodynamicsChemistryTitrationBinding constantBiological systemBinding sitePhysicsPhysical chemistryBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) is commonly used to determine the thermodynamic parameters associated with the binding of a ligand to a host macromolecule. ITC has some advantages over common spectroscopic approaches for studying host/ligand interactions. For example, the heat released or absorbed when the two components interact is directly measured and does not require any exogenous reporters. Thus the binding enthalpy and the association constant (Ka) are directly obtained from ITC data, and can be used to compute the entropic contribution. Moreover, the shape of the isotherm is dependent on the c-value and the mechanistic model involved. The c-value is defined as c = n[P]tKa, where [P]t is the protein concentration, and n is the number of ligand binding sites within the host. In many cases, multiple binding sites for a given ligand are non-equivalent and ITC allows the characterization of the thermodynamic binding parameters for each individual binding site. This however requires that the correct binding model be used. This choice can be problematic if different models can fit the same experimental data. We have previously shown that this problem can be circumvented by performing experiments at several c-values. The multiple isotherms obtained at different c-values are fit simultaneously to separate models. The correct model is next identified based on the goodness of fit across the entire variable-c dataset. This process is applied here to the aminoglycoside resistance-causing enzyme aminoglycoside N-6'-acetyltransferase-Ii (AAC(6')-Ii). Although our methodology is applicable to any system, the necessity of this strategy is better demonstrated with a macromolecule-ligand system showing allostery or cooperativity, and when different binding models provide essentially identical fits to the same data. To our knowledge, there are no such systems commercially available. AAC(6')-Ii, is a homo-dimer containing two active sites, showing cooperativity between the two subunits. However ITC data obtained at a single c-value can be fit equally well to at least two different models a two-sets-of-sites independent model and a two-site sequential (cooperative) model. Through varying the c-value as explained above, it was established that the correct binding model for AAC(6')-Ii is a two-site sequential binding model. Herein, we describe the steps that must be taken when performing ITC experiments in order to obtain datasets suitable for variable-c analyses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.327 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analysesFrench-language works237,207