MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053740221 · doi:10.1002/bip.20807

Tryptathionine bridges in peptide synthesis

2007· review· en· W2053740221 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan P. May, David M. Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopolymers · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPeptidePreprintAffinitiesBinding affinitiesComputational biologyCysteineStereochemistryCombinatorial chemistryBiochemistryBiologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tryptathionine linkage is a crosslink formed between tryptophan and cysteine. This feature is characteristic of the bicyclic peptides: the phallotoxins and the amatoxins. These peptides both bind to protein folds of their respective targets (F‐actin and RNA pol II, respectively) with extremely high affinities. Studies on these peptides have shown that the tryptathionine crosslink is essential for this binding affinity. Tryptathionines have been investigated for many years and several syntheses exist for their formation. In this review, we report on the various methodologies employed in tryptathionine synthesis, and discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of them. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers (Pept Sci) 88: 714–724, 2007. This article was originally published online as an accepted preprint. The “Published Online” date corresponds to the preprint version. You can request a copy of the preprint by emailing the Biopolymers editorial office at biopolymers@wiley.com

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiopolymersSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207