MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148633856 · doi:10.1139/o05-018

The role of detergent in refolding of GdnHCl-denatured arginine kinase from shrimp <i>Fenneropenaeus Chinensis</i>: the solubilization of aggregate and refolding in detergent solutions

2005· article· en· W2148633856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ji‐Cheng Pan, Jinsong Wang, Yuan Cheng, Zhenhang Yu, Xue-Ming Rao, Hai‐Meng Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuanidineChemistryArginine kinaseDenaturation (fissile materials)KineticsSolubilizationChromatographyArginineYield (engineering)Protein aggregationBiochemistryAmino acidNuclear chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong aggregation occurred in the refolding route of arginine kinase (AK) denatured with 3 mol GdnHCl/L (GdnHCl, guanidine hydrochloride). The activity recovery of GdnHCl-denatured AK was very low and dependent on the protein concentration in the process of refolding. For denatured AK at 1.2 micromol/L concentration, the recovered activity yield was about 45.2% of the native enzyme, whereas at 5.2 micromol/L the activity recovery yield was only 20% of native activity. The nonionic detergent Triton X-100 and Tween 20 (< or = 100 mmol/L concentration) not only effectively blocked the aggregation but also enabled the denatured AK to recover most of its native activity. The kinetics of aggregate solubilization showed that there was an induction phase dependent on the detergent, but there was no dependency when detergent was absent. The apparent activity recovery had a cooperative relation with detergents in the process of refolding, which suggested the existence of some interaction between the detergent and the refolding intermediate. On the basis of the study results, a scheme of refolding was proposed.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207