MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107423942 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002782

Kinetics of Amyloid Aggregation: A Study of the GNNQQNY Prion Sequence

2012· article· en· W2107423942 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Nasica-Labouze, Normand Mousseau

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsNucleationKineticsMonomerNucleusAggregate (composite)Amyloid (mycology)Sequence (biology)Molecular dynamicsProtein aggregationPrion proteinChemistryBiophysicsPhysicsBiologyMaterials scienceNanotechnologyComputational chemistryPolymerBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small amyloid-forming GNNQQNY fragment of the prion sequence has been the subject of extensive experimental and numerical studies over the last few years. Using unbiased molecular dynamics with the OPEP coarse-grained potential, we focus here on the onset of aggregation in a 20-mer system. With a total of 16.9 μs of simulations at 280 K and 300 K, we show that the GNNQQNY aggregation follows the classical nucleation theory (CNT) in that the number of monomers in the aggregate is a very reliable descriptor of aggregation. We find that the critical nucleus size in this finite-size system is between 4 and 5 monomers at 280 K and 5 and 6 at 300 K, in overall agreement with experiment. The kinetics of growth cannot be fully accounted for by the CNT, however. For example, we observe considerable rearrangements after the nucleus is formed, as the system attempts to optimize its organization. We also clearly identify two large families of structures that are selected at the onset of aggregation demonstrating the presence of well-defined polymorphism, a signature of amyloid growth, already in the 20-mer aggregate.

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)0.000
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207