MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133997825 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601505103

Specificity in substrate and cofactor recognition by the N-terminal domain of the chaperone ClpX

2006· article· en· W2133997825 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Thibault, Jovana Yudin, Philip Wong, Vladimir Tsitrin, Remco Sprangers, Rongmin Zhao, Walid A. Houry

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom hexamerChaperone (clinical)CofactorAAA proteinsCyclic nucleotide-binding domainChemistryZinc fingerPlasma protein bindingBinding siteAllosteric regulationBiochemistryFluorescence anisotropyBiophysicsATPaseBiologyPeptide sequenceEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clp ATPases are a unique group of ATP-dependent chaperones supporting targeted protein unfolding and degradation in concert with their respective proteases. ClpX is a representative member of these ATPases; it consists of two domains, a zinc-binding domain (ZBD) that forms dimers and a AAA+ ATP-binding domain that arranges into a hexamer. Analysis of the binding preferences of these two domains in ClpX revealed that both domains preferentially bind to hydrophobic residues but have different sequence preferences, with the AAA+ domain preferentially recognizing a wider range of specific sequences than ZBD. As part of this analysis, the binding site of the ClpX dimeric cofactor, SspB2, on ZBD in ClpX was determined by NMR and mutational analysis. The SspB C terminus was found to interact with a hydrophobic patch on the surface of ZBD. The affinity of SspB2 toward ZBD2 and the geometry of the SspB2-ZBD2 complex were investigated by using the newly developed quantitative optical biosensor method of dual polarization interferometry. The data suggest a model for the interaction between SspB2 and the ClpX hexamer.

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)0.001
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207