A New Spin Probe of Protein Dynamics: Nitrogen Relaxation in <sup>15</sup> N− <sup>2</sup> H Amide Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(15)N spin relaxation data have provided a wealth of information on protein dynamics in solution. Standard R(1), R(1)(rho), and NOE experiments aimed at (15)N[(1)H] amide moieties are complemented in this work by HA(CACO)N-type experiments allowing the measurement of nitrogen R(1) and R(1)(rho) rates at deuterated (15)N[(2)D] sites. Difference rates obtained using this approach, R(1)((15)N[(1)H]) - R(1)((15)N[(2)D]) and R(2)((15)N[(1)H]) - R(2)((15)N[(2)D]), depend exclusively on dipolar interactions and are insensitive to (15)N CSA and R(ex) relaxation mechanisms. The methodology has been tested on a sample of peptostreptococcal protein L (63 residues) prepared in 50% H(2)O-50% D(2)O solvent. The results from the new and conventional experiments are found to be consistent, with respect to both local backbone dynamics and overall protein tumbling. Combining several data sets permits evaluation of the spectral density J(omega(D) + omega(N)) for each amide site. This spectral density samples a uniquely low frequency (26 MHz at a 500 MHz field) and, therefore, is expected to be highly useful for characterizing nanosecond time scale local motions. The spectral density mapping demonstrates that, in the case of protein L, J(omega(D) + omega(N)) values are compatible with the Lipari-Szabo interpretation of backbone dynamics based on the conventional (15)N relaxation data.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".