MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protein Structure in Membrane Domains

2012· review· en· W2111070954 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Biophysics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTransmembrane proteinContext (archaeology)Folding (DSP implementation)MembraneMembrane proteinProtein foldingBiophysicsMembrane biophysicsSequence (biology)Protein structureChemistryComputational biologyBiochemistryBiologyEngineeringReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of great interest to the academic and pharmaceutical research communities, helical transmembrane proteins are characterized by their ability to dissolve and fold in lipid bilayers--properties conferred by polypeptide spans termed transmembrane domains (TMDs). The apolar nature of TMDs necessitates the use of membrane-mimetic solvents for many structure and folding studies. This review examines the relationship between TMD structure and solvent environment, focusing on principles elucidated largely in membrane-mimetic environments with single-TMD protein and peptide models. Following a brief description of TMD sequence and conformational characteristics gleaned from the structural database, we present an overview of the conceptual models used to study folding in vitro. The impact of sequence and solvent context on the incorporation of TMDs into membranes, and its role in measurements of TMD self-assembly strengths, is then described. We conclude with a discussion of the nonspecific effects of membrane components on TMD stability.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.292 · 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