MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060120849 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m001178200

Thermodynamic and Functional Characterization of Protein W from Bacteriophage λ

2000· article· en· W2060120849 on OpenAlexaff
Karen L. Maxwell, Alan R. Davidson, Helios Murialdo, Marvin Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircular dichroismBacteriophageMutantFusion proteinEscherichia coliMutagenesisChemistryBiochemistryProtein secondary structureProtein structureProtein engineeringSite-directed mutagenesisBiophysicsBiologyRecombinant DNAGeneEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene product W (gpW), the head-tail joining protein from bacteriophage lambda, provides a fascinating model for studying protein interactions. Composed of only 68 residues, it must interact with at least two other proteins in the phage, and probably with DNA. To study the structural and functional properties of gpW, plasmids were constructed expressing gpW with hexahistidine tag sequences at either the N or C terminus. The purified wild type fusion proteins were found to be stably folded and biologically active. The protein is monomeric as judged by equilibrium ultracentrifugation, and appears to unfold by a cooperative two-state mechanism. Circular dichroism studies indicate that the protein is 47% helical, with a T(m) of 71.3 degrees C, and a DeltaG(u) of 3.01 kcal/mol at 25 degrees C. Mutagenesis of the three hydrophobic C-terminal residues of gpW showed that they are critical for activity, even though they do not contribute to the thermodynamic stability of the protein. Using secondary structure prediction as a guide, we also designed destabilized gpW mutants. The hydrophobic nature of the gpW C terminus caused these mutants to be degraded by the ClpP-containing proteases in Escherichia coli.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207