MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122713363 · doi:10.1002/pro.2592

Vibrational entropy differences between mesophile and thermophile proteins and their use in protein engineering

2014· article· en· W2122713363 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProtein Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermophileThermostabilityMesophileEntropy (arrow of time)Conformational entropyProtein structureAmino acidChemistryCrystallographyComputational biologyBiochemistryThermodynamicsBiologyMaterials scienceGeneticsPhysicsEnzymeMoleculeOrganic chemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently introduced ENCoM, an elastic network atomic contact model, as the first coarse-grained normal mode analysis method that accounts for the nature of amino acids and can predict the effect of mutations on thermostability based on changes vibrational entropy. In this proof-of-concept article, we use pairs of mesophile and thermophile homolog proteins with identical structures to determine if a measure of vibrational entropy based on normal mode analysis can discriminate thermophile from mesophile proteins. We observe that in around 60% of cases, thermophile proteins are more rigid at equivalent temperatures than their mesophile counterpart and this difference can guide the design of proteins to increase their thermostability through series of mutations. We observe that mutations separating thermophile proteins from their mesophile orthologs contribute independently to a decrease in vibrational entropy and discuss the application and implications of this methodology to protein engineering.

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 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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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