The effects of <scp>L</scp>‐ to <scp>D</scp>‐isomerization and C‐terminus deamidation on the secondary structure of antimicrobial peptide Anoplin in aqueous and membrane mimicking environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract UV resonance Raman spectra of the antimicrobial peptide (AMP) Anoplin ( L ‐Anoplin‐NH 2 ) and two of its derivatives (enantiomer D ‐Anoplin‐NH 2 and C‐terminus deamidated L ‐Anoplin‐OH) were measured in aqueous buffer solution and in membrane‐mimetic environments including 2,2,2‐trifluoro ethanol (TFE), zwitterionic lipid dipalmitoylglycerophosphocholine (DPPC) and anionic lipid dipalmitoylglycerophosphoglycerol (DPPG) vesicle solutions. All three peptides were found to adopt random‐coil/β turn‐like conformation in aqueous solution over the temperature range of 1–60 °C. The conformation was found to become more α‐helical in membrane‐mimetic solutions such as TFE and DPPG but not in DPPC for all Anoplin derivatives. The data demonstrate that Anoplin preferentially binds to the anionic over the zwitterionic model cell membranes. Results also showed that deamidation does not change the conformation of L ‐Ano‐NH 2 very significantly, but does alter membrane rupturing and antimicrobial activities thus confirming that it is the physicochemical properties rather than the peptide conformation that define the mechanism of AMP action. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".