MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132902426 · doi:10.1139/o09-127

Communication between the AAA+ ring and microtubule-binding domain of dyneinThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue entitled 8th International Conference on AAA Proteins and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.

2010· review· en· W2132902426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew P. Carter, Ronald D. Vale

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsDyneinMicrotubuleCoiled coilMotor proteinLinkerBiophysicsKinesinMolecular motorRing (chemistry)Binding domainDomain (mathematical analysis)ChemistryCrystallographyBiologyCell biologyBinding siteBiochemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyneins are microtubule motors, the core of which consists of a ring of AAA+ domains. ATP-driven conformational changes of the AAA+ ring are used to drive the movement of a mechanical element (termed the linker domain) that provides the motor's powerstroke and to change the affinity of the motor for microtubules (strong binding during the power stroke and weak binding to allow stepping and recocking of the linker domain). Dynein's microtubule-binding domain (MTBD) is located at the end of a 10 nm long anti-parallel coiled coil (the stalk) and conformational changes that alter the affinity for microtubules must propagate through this coiled coil. A recent crystal structure of dynein's MTBD sheds new light on how this long-range communication along a coiled coil might occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207