Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adenosine 5′‐triphosphate (ATP) binds to a great number of proteins to elicit a wide variety of effects, including energy production and molecular signalling. Proteins have evolved different strategies to specifically recognize ATP, utilizing different ways of binding the phosphoryl moieties as well as the adenine base. The most common, conserved sequence and structural motif for binding ATP is the Walker‐A motif, or P‐loop, found in many different protein structural families. Greater variation in the sequence of the P‐loop is being recognized, as more ATP‐binding proteins are being structurally and functionally characterized. In contrast to the P‐loop, recognition of the adenine base often makes use of conserved structural motifs of main‐chain atoms via hydrogen‐bonding interactions, or side‐chains in stacking interactions, without a definitive amino acid sequence pattern. Key concepts: A major class of ATP‐binding proteins are those that contain a P‐loop or Walker‐A motif. P‐loops or glycine‐rich loops function by binding the phosphoryl groups of ATP. Several sequence variations on the Walker‐A motif are now known and have been functionally characterized. The Walker‐B motif contains a conserved acidic residue (Glu/Asp) that functions to bind directly or indirectly a metal ion important in catalysis. Adenine‐binding does not occur through specific sequence motifs, but rather uses a conserved pattern of polar and nonpolar interactions within a structural motif. Both main‐chain hydrogen bonding and aromatic residue stacking contribute to adenine‐binding by proteins.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.031 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".