MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041222990 · doi:10.1021/bi901145a

Binding Conformation and Kinetics of Two Pheromone-Binding Proteins from the Gypsy Moth <i>Lymantria dispar</i> with Biological and Nonbiological Ligands

2009· article· en· W2041222990 on OpenAlexaff
Yongmei Gong, Hao Tang, Cornelia Bohne, Erika Plettner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLigand (biochemistry)TryptophanGypsy mothLymantria disparBiophysicsKineticsPheromoneBiochemistryStereochemistryBiologyAmino acidReceptorGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs) in insects can bind various substances and selectively deliver the message of a signal molecule to the downstream components of the olfactory system. This can be achieved either through a ligand-specific conformational change of the C-terminal peptide of the PBP or by selectively binding/releasing the ligand. PBP may also act as a scavenger to protect the sensory neurons from saturating at high ligand doses. We have compared two PBPs from the gypsy moth (PBP1 and PBP2) and their truncated forms (TPBPs), which lack the C-terminal peptide, in this study. Stopped-flow kinetics with N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine (NPN) have revealed a diffusion-controlled collisional step, between PBP and NPN, after which the NPN relocates into a hydrophobic environment. This work supports the hypothesis that binding between PBPs and ligands occurs stepwise. With the method of tryptophan fluorescence quenching, we have shown different local conformational changes around Trp 37, induced by different ligands, manifested in changes of both the steric and electronic environment around the residue. Importantly, we have noticed a significant difference in the changes induced by the biological ligand (the pheromone) and nonbiological ligands. Therefore, we hypothesize that PBP may serve a different function in each kinetic step, displaying a unique P.L conformation.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207