MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046087379 · doi:10.1021/bi051583y

The Binding of W7, an Inhibitor of Striated Muscle Contraction, to Cardiac Troponin C

2005· article· en· W2046087379 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan M. B. Hoffman, Monica X. Li, Brian D. Sykes

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContraction (grammar)CardiologyCardiac muscleChemistryInternal medicineTroponinTroponin IMuscle contractionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

W7 is a well-characterized calmodulin antagonist. It decreases the maximal tension and rate of ATP hydrolysis in cardiac muscle fibers. Cardiac troponin C (cTnC) has been previously implicated as the mechanistically significant target for W7 in the myofilament. Two-dimensional NMR spectra ({1H,15N}- and {1H,13C}-HSQCs) were used to monitor the Ca2+-dependent binding of W7 to cTnC. Titration of cTnC x 3Ca2+ with W7 indicated binding to both domains of the protein. We examined the binding of W7 to the separated domains of cTnC to simplify the spectral analysis. In the titration of the C-terminal domain (cCTnC x 2Ca2+), the spectral peaks originating from a subset of residues changed nonuniformly, and could not be well-described as single-site binding. A global fit of the cCTnC x 2Ca2+ titration data to a two-site, sequential binding model (47 residues simultaneously fit) yielded a dissociation constant (Kd1) of 0.85-0.91 mM for the singly bound state, with the second dissociation constant fit to 3.40-3.65 mM (> or = 4 x Kd1). The titration data for the N-terminal domain (cNTnC x Ca2+) was globally fit to single-site binding model with a Kd of 0.15-0.30 mM (41 residues fit). The data are consistent with W7 binding to each domain's major hydrophobic pocket, coordinating side chains responsible for liganding cTnI. When in muscle fibers, W7 may compete with cTnI for target sites on cTnC.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207