MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088628021 · doi:10.1021/jp9122024

Comparative Characterization of Short Monomeric Polyglutamine Peptides by Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics Simulation

2010· article· en· W2088628021 on OpenAlexaff
Miki Nakano, Hirofumi Watanabe, Stuart M. Rothstein, Shigenori Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular dynamicsMonomerHydrogen bondChemistryRandom coilProtein secondary structureReplicaProtein structureProtein quaternary structureCrystallographyComputational chemistryMoleculeBiochemistryPolymerProtein subunit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyglutamine (polyQ) diseases are caused by an abnormal expansion of CAG repeats. While their detailed structure remains unclear, polyQ peptides assume beta-sheet structures when they aggregate. To investigate the conformational ensemble of short, monomeric polyQ peptides, which consist of 15 glutamine residues (Q(15)), we performed replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) simulations. We found that Q(15) can assume multiple configurations due to all of the residues affecting the formation of side-chain hydrogen bonds. Analysis of the free energy landscape reveals that Q(15) has a basin for random-coil structures and another for alpha-helix or beta-turn structures. To investigate properties of aggregated polyQ peptides, we performed multiple molecular dynamics (MMD) simulations for monomeric and oligomeric Q(15). MMD revealed that the formation of oligomers stabilizes the beta-turn structure by increasing the number of hydrogen bonds between the main chains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207