MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101091975 · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2012.05.043

Elucidation of the binding preferences of peptide recognition modules: SH3 and PDZ domains

2012· review· en· W2101091975 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Teyra, Sachdev S. Sidhu, Philip M. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPDZ domainPeptideComputational biologySH3 domainPlasma protein bindingBinding selectivityProtein–protein interactionBinding siteDomain (mathematical analysis)Binding domainModular designBiologyBiochemistryComputer sciencePhosphorylationMathematicsProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peptide-binding domains play a critical role in regulation of cellular processes by mediating protein interactions involved in signalling. In recent years, the development of large-scale technologies has enabled exhaustive studies on the peptide recognition preferences for a number of peptide-binding domain families. These efforts have provided significant insights into the binding specificities of these modular domains. Many research groups have taken advantage of this unprecedented volume of specificity data and have developed a variety of new algorithms for the prediction of binding specificities of peptide-binding domains and for the prediction of their natural binding targets. This knowledge has also been applied to the design of synthetic peptide-binding domains in order to rewire protein-protein interaction networks. Here, we describe how these experimental technologies have impacted on our understanding of peptide-binding domain specificities and on the elucidation of their natural ligands. We discuss SH3 and PDZ domains as well characterized examples, and we explore the feasibility of expanding high-throughput experiments to other peptide-binding domains.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207