Interaction of Antifreeze Proteins with Hydrocarbon Hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recombinant antifreeze proteins (AFPs), representing a range of activities with respect to ice growth inhibition, were investigated for their abilities to control the crystal formation and growth of hydrocarbon hydrates. Three different AFPs were compared with two synthetic commercial inhibitors, poly-N-vinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and HIW85281, by using multiple approaches, which included gas uptake, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) temperature ramping, and DSC isothermal observations. A new method to assess the induction period before heterogeneous nucleation and subsequent hydrate crystal growth was developed and involved the dispersal of water in the pore space of silica gel beads. Although hydrate nucleation is a complex phenomenon, we have shown that it can now be carefully quantified. The presence of AFPs delayed crystallization events and showed hydrate growth inhibition that was superior to that of one of the benchmark commercial inhibitors, PVP. Nucleation and growth inhibition were shown to be independent processes, which indicates a difference in the mechanisms required for these two inhibitory actions. In addition, there was no apparent correlation between the assayed activities of the three AFPs toward hexagonal ice and the cubic structure II (sII) hydrate, which suggests that there are distinctive differences in the protein interactions with the two crystal surfaces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".