High‐resolution computer simulation of the dynamics of isoelectric focusing of proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dynamic electrophoresis simulator that accepts 150 components and voltage gradients employed in the laboratory was used to provide a detailed description of the focusing process of proteins under conditions that were hitherto inaccessible. High-resolution focusing data of four hemoglobin variants in a convection-free medium are presented for pH 3-10 and pH 5-8 gradients formed with 20 and 40 carrier ampholytes/pH unit, respectively. With 300 V/cm, focusing is shown to occur within 5-10 min, whereas at 600 V/cm separation is predicted to be complete between 2.5 and 5 min. The time interval required for focusing of proteins is demonstrated to be dependent on the input protein charge data and, however less, on the properties of the carrier ampholytes. The simulation data reveal that the number of transient protein boundaries migrating from the two ends of the column towards the focusing positions is equal to the number of sample components. Each protein is being focused via the well-known double-peak approach to equilibrium, a process that is also characteristic for focusing of the carrier ampholytes. The predicted focusing dynamics for the hemoglobin variants in pH 3-10 and pH 5-8 gradients are shown to qualitatively agree well with experimental data obtained by whole-column optical imaging.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".