MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086292995 · doi:10.1021/ja0685506

Structure and Interaction in Aqueous Urea−Trimethylamine-<i>N</i>-oxide Solutions

2007· article· en· W2086292995 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryTrimethylamine N-oxideUreaHydrogen bondTrimethylamineAqueous solutionHydrophobic effectMolecular dynamicsOxideInorganic chemistryCrystallographyComputational chemistryMoleculePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structural and energetic properties of solutions containing water, urea, and trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) are examined using molecular dynamics simulations. Such systems are of interest mainly because TMAO acts to counter the protein denaturing effect of urea. Even at relatively high concentration, TMAO is found to fit well into the urea-water structure. The underlying solution structure is influenced by TMAO, but these perturbations tend to be modest. The TMAO-water and TMAO-urea interaction energies make an important contribution to the total energy in solutions where counter-denaturing effects are expected. TMAO-water and TMAO-urea hydrogen bonds have the largest hydrogen-bond energies in the system. Additionally, TMAO cannot hydrogen bond with itself, and hence it interacts strongly with water and urea. These observations suggest that the mechanism of TMAO counter denaturation is simply that water and urea prefer to solvate TMAO rather than the protein, hence inhibiting its unfolding.

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.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.248 · 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