The conformations of the amyloid-β (21–30) fragment can be described by three families in solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease has been linked to the self-assembly of the amyloid-beta protein of 40 and 42 residues. Although monomers are in equilibrium with higher-order species ranging from dimers to heptamers, structural knowledge of the monomeric amyloid-beta (Abeta) peptides is an important issue. Recent experimental data have shown that the fragment (21-30) is protease-resistant within full-length Abeta peptides and displays two structural families in solution. Because the details of the Abeta(21-30) structures found using distinct force fields and protocols differ at various degrees from those of the NMR structures, we revisit the conformational space of this peptide using the activation-relaxation technique (ART nouveau) coupled with a coarse-grained force field (OPEP v.3.0). We find that although Abeta(21-30) does not have a secondary structure, it dominantly populates three structural families, with a loop spanning residues Val24-Lys28. The first two families, which differ in the nature of the electrostatic interactions, satisfy the five interproton rotating frame nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy (ROESY) distances and superpose well onto the NMR structures. The third family, which cannot be seen by ROESY NMR experiments, displays a more open structure. This numeric study complements the experimental results by providing a much more detailed description of the dominant structures. Moreover, it provides further evidence of the capability of ART OPEP in providing a reliable conformational picture of peptides in solution.
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".