MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102793288 · doi:10.1093/chemse/28.6.479

Structure-Activity Studies with Pheromone-binding Proteins of the Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar

2003· article· en· W2102793288 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolette S. Honson

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Senses · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGypsy mothLymantria disparPheromoneLigand (biochemistry)Sex pheromonePopulationBiologyBiochemistryOlfactionStereochemistryChemistryReceptorBotanyLepidoptera genitaliaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pheromone olfaction in the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, involves accurate distinction of compounds with similar structure and polarity. The identified sex pheromone is (7R,8S)-2-methyl-7,8-epoxyoctadecane, 1a, and a known antagonist is (7Z)-2-methyloctadec-7-ene, 4a. The first step in pheromone olfaction is binding of odorants by small, soluble pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs), found in the pheromone-sensing hairs. We have studied the molecular determinants recognized by the two PBPs found in the gypsy moth, using three pheromone/PBP binding assays. Results indicate that (i) PBPs bind analogs of the pheromone with some discrimination; (ii) PBPs experience enhancement of binding when presented with 1a or its enantiomer and 4a simultaneously; and (iii) the binding enhancement is also seen at high ligand:PBP ratios. We found no evidence of allostery, so the synergistic binding effects and the concentration effect may only be explained by multimerization of PBPs with each other, which leads to more than one population of binding sites. We suggest that the enhanced ligand binding at high ligand:PBP ratios may serve to sequester excess ligand and thereby attenuate very strong signals.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations69
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical SensesSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207