MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119052246 · doi:10.1021/jp065837g

Conformational Selectivity of Peptides for Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

2006· letter· en· W2119052246 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengding Su, Tong Leung, John F. Honek

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeSelectivityNanotechnologyChemistryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryCatalysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon nanotubes show promising prospects for applications ranging from molecular electronics to ultrasensitive biosensors. An important aspect to understanding carbon nanotube properties is their interactions with biomolecules such as peptides and proteins, as these interactions are important in our understanding of nanotube interactions with the environment, their use in cellular systems, as well as their interface with biological materials for medical and diagnostic applications. Here we report the sequence and conformational requirements of peptides for high-affinity binding to single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs). A new motif, X(1)THX(2)X(3)PWTX(4), where X(1) is G or H, X(2) is H or D or null, X(3) is null or R, and X4 is null or K, was identified from two classes of phage-displayed peptide libraries. The high affinity binding of the motif to SWNTs required constrained conformations which were achieved through either the extension of the amino acid sequence (e.g., LLADTTHHRPWT) or the addition of a constrained disulfide bond (e.g., CGHPWTKC). This motif shows specific high-affinity to the currently studied SWNTs, compared to previously reported peptides. The conformations of the identified peptides in complex with SWNTs were also characterized with a variety of biophysical methodologies including CD, fluorescence, NMR spectroscopy, and molecular modeling.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207