A comparison of three‐ and four‐helix bundle TASP molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have designed, synthesized and characterized three- and four-helix bundle template-assembled synthetic proteins CTASPs). The TASPs were synthesized using disulphide bonds between the peptides and either the cyclotribenzylene (CTB) template, or the cavitand (BOWL) template, to form the three- and four helix bundles, respectively. The TASPs were constructed using peptides that were linked via their N-termini (peptide CGGGEELLKKXEELLKKG, where X = L, I, Nle or V), or via their C-termini (peptide GEELLKKLEELLKKGGGC). Each TASP was assayed for its structure, stability, 'native-like' characteristics and whether it was a monomer in solution. All TASPs were found to be highly helical, and highly resistant to chemical denaturation using guanidine hydrochloride (GnHCl). Analysis of the GnHCl-induced unfolding curves of the different TASPs demonstrated stability differences based on the number of helices in the bundle, the end of the helix that was attached to the template, and the identity of the core amino acid. The TASPs all had molten-globule structure, which is (generally) consistent with a degenerate sequence in the core. The four-helix bundle TASPs appeared to be monomers in solution, whereas there is some evidence that the three-helix bundle TASPs are weakly self-associating.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".