Three steps in the thermal unfolding of F‐actin: An experimental evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of differential scanning calorimetry has resulted in an increased interest in studies of the unfolding process in proteins with the aim of identifying domains and interactions with ligands or other proteins. Several of these studies were done with actin and showed that the thermal unfolding of F‐actin occurs in at least three steps; this was interpreted as the denaturation of independent domains. In the present work, we have followed the thermal unfolding of F‐actin using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), CD spectroscopy, and probe fluorescence. We found that the three steps revealed through DSC are not the denaturation of independent domains. These three steps are a change in the environment of cys 374 at 49.5°C; a modification at the nucleotide‐binding site at 55°C; and the unfolding of the peptide chain at 64°C. Previous interpretations of the thermograms of F‐actin were thus erroneous. Since DSC is now widely used to study proteins, our experimental approach and conclusions may also be relevant in denaturation studies of proteins in general. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers 83:374–380, 2006 This article was originally published online as an accepted preprint. The “Published Online” date corresponds to the preprint version. You can request a copy of the preprint by emailing the Biopolymers editorial office at biopolymers@wiley.com
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".