MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139865428 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0706876104

Getting specificity from simplicity in putative proteins from the prebiotic Earth

2007· article· en· W2139865428 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime López de la Osa, David A. Bateman, Sylvia Ho, Carlos González, Avijit Chakrabartty, Douglas V. Laurents

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmino acidSide chainChemistryHydrogen bondProtein foldingProtein structurePrebioticResidue (chemistry)CrystallographyStereochemistryMoleculeBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can unique protein structures arise from a limited set of amino acids present on the prebiotic earth? To address this question, we have determined the stability and structure of KIA7, a 20-residue polypeptide containing chiefly Lys, Ile, and Ala. NMR methods reveal that KIA7 tetramerizes and folds on the millisecond time scale to adopt a four-helix X-bundle structure with a tightly and specifically packed core. Denaturation studies and hydrogen exchange measurements of KIA7 and several variants demonstrate that ridges-into-grooves packing of Ala and Ile side chains and the packing of a C-terminal aromatic group into the hydrophobic core are sufficient to give rise to a rather stable, well folded protein structure, with no favorable electrostatic interactions or tertiary or quaternary hydrogen bonds. Both modern proteins and RNAs can adopt specific structures, but RNAs do so with a limited "alphabet" of residues and types of stabilizing interactions. The results reported here show that specific, well folded protein structures can also arise from a highly reduced set of stabilizing interactions and amino acids that are thought to have been present on the prebiotic earth.

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)0.001
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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207