MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147568004 · doi:10.1002/prot.10108

Anti‐cooperativity and cooperativity in hydrophobic interactions: Three‐body free energy landscapes and comparison with implicit‐solvent potential functions for proteins

2002· article· en· W2147568004 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

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCooperativityChemistrySolvent modelsPotential of mean forceMolecular dynamicsEnergy landscapeThermodynamicsHydrophobic effectChemical physicsSolventAccessible surface areaComputational chemistryStatistical physicsPhysicsOrganic chemistrySolvation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potentials of mean force (PMFs) of three-body hydrophobic association are investigated to gain insight into similar processes in protein folding. Free energy landscapes obtained from explicit simulations of three methanes in water are compared with that predicted by popular implicit-solvent effective potentials for the study of proteins. Explicit-water simulations show that for an extended range of three-methane configurations, hydrophobic association at 25 degrees C under atmospheric pressure is mostly anti-cooperative, that is, less favorable than if the interaction free energies were pairwise additive. Effects of free energy nonadditivity on the kinetic path of association and the temperature dependence of additivity are explored by using a three-methane system and simplified chain models. The prevalence of anti-cooperativity under ambient conditions suggests that driving forces other than hydrophobicity also play critical roles in protein thermodynamic cooperativity. We evaluate the effectiveness of several implicit-solvent potentials in mimicking explicit water simulated three-body PMFs. The favorability of the contact free energy minimum is found to be drastically overestimated by solvent accessible surface area (SASA). Both the SASA and a volume-based Gaussian solvent exclusion model fail to predict the desolvation barrier. However, this barrier is qualitatively captured by the molecular surface area model and a recent "hydrophobic force field." None of the implicit-solvent models tested are accurate for the entire range of three-methane configurations and several other thermodynamic signatures considered.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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