MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091696392 · doi:10.1021/bi048152k

Origins of Helix−Coil Switching in a Light-Sensitive Peptide

2004· article· en· W2091696392 on OpenAlexaff
Darcy C. Burns, Daniel G. Flint, Janet R. Kumita, Howard J. Feldman, Luís Serrano, Zhihua Zhang, Oliver S. Smart, G. Andrew Woolley

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhotochromic and Fluorescence Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoisomerizationLinkerHelix (gastropod)PeptideChemistryIntramolecular forceConformational changeAlpha helixTransition (genetics)Coiled coilBiophysicsCrystallographyStereochemistryCircular dichroismIsomerizationBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intramolecular cross-linking of peptides by the light-sensitive compound diiodoacetamideazobenzene has been shown to permit reversible photocontrol of the helix-coil transition. Cross-linking between Cys residues spaced at i and i + 7 positions with the trans form of the linker was found to produce a decreased helix content compared to that of the non-cross-linked peptide. Photoisomerization to the cis form of the linker led to substantially higher helix content than in the non-cross-linked peptide. Detailed conformational analysis of the system leads to the conclusion that photocontrol of helix content does not involve specific interactions between the linker and the peptide. Instead, the change in peptide helix content caused by photoisomerization can be predicted by comparing the length ranges of the cis and trans forms of the linker with the expected distance distribution of the Cys attachment points in the intrinsic conformational ensemble of the peptide. The analysis presented here should help to guide the use of these and related linkers for the conformational control of a variety of peptide and protein systems.

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 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations50
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicPhotochromic and Fluorescence ChemistryFrench-language works237,207