Peptide models XLV: Conformational properties of <i>N</i>‐formyl‐<scp>L</scp>‐methioninamide and its relevance to methionine in proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conformational space of the most biologically significant backbone folds of a suitable methionine peptide model was explored by density functional computational method. Using a medium [6-31G(d)] and a larger basis set [6-311++G(2d,2p)], the systematic exploration of low-energy backbone structures restricted for the "L-region" in the Ramachandran map of N-formyl-L-methioninamide results in conformers corresponding to the building units of an extended backbone structure (betaL), an inverse gamma-turn (gammaL), or a right-handed helical structure (alphaL). However, no poly-proline II type (epsilonL) fold was found, indicating that this conformer has no intrinsic stability, and highlighting the effect of molecular environment in stabilizing this backbone structure. This is in agreement with the abundance of the epsilonL-type backbone conformation of methionine found in proteins. Stability properties (DeltaE) and distinct backbone-side-chain interactions support the idea that specific intramolecular contacts are operative in the selection of the lowest energy conformers. Apart from the number of different folds, all stable conformers are within a 10 kcal x mol(-1) energy range, indicating the highly flexible behavior of methionine. This conformational feature can be important in supporting catalytic processes, facilitating protein folding and dimerization via metal ion binding. In both of the biological examples discussed (HIV-1 reverse transcriptase and PcoC copper-resistant protein), the conformational properties of Met residues were found to be of key importance. Spatial proximity to other types of residues or the same type of residue seems to be crucial for the structural integrity of a protein, whether Met is buried or exposed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".