MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing heterodimeric two‐stranded α‐helical coiled‐coils: the effect of chain length on protein folding, stability and specificity

2001· article· en· W2111789637 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer R. Litowski, Robert S. Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoiled coilGuanidineCircular dichroismChemistryHeptad repeatFolding (DSP implementation)Protein foldingDenaturation (fissile materials)CrystallographyBiophysicsPeptideProtein designProtein structureBiochemistryPeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The E/K coil, a heterodimeric coiled-coil, has been designed as a universal peptide capture and delivery system for use in applications such as biosensors and affinity chromatography. In this design, heterodimer formation is specified through the placement of charged residues at the e and g positions of the heptad repeat. The affinity and stability of the E/K coil has been modified in order to allow a greater range of conditions for association and dissociation by varying the chain length to obtain three, four and five heptad coiled-coils (21, 28 and 35 residues per polypeptide chain). The effect of chain length on stability and folding was examined by circular dichroism spectroscopy, guanidine hydrochloride denaturation, and redox equilibrium experiments. It was found that increases in chain length produced increases in the stability of heterodimeric coiled-coils, but in a nonlinear fashion. The resulting disulfide-bridged heterostranded molecules and reduced heterodimers span a wide range of stabilities (deltaG=3.3-11.9 kcal/mol), greatly expanding their scope for use in protein engineering and biomedical applications.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations86
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peptide ResearchSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207