MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159397970 · doi:10.1042/bst0361433

Residual dipolar couplings as a tool to study molecular recognition of ubiquitin

2008· review· en· W2159397970 on OpenAlexaff
Nils‐Alexander Lakomek, Oliver F. Lange, Korvin F. A. Walter, Christophe Farès, Dalia Egger, P. Lunkenheimer, Jens Meiler, Helmut Grubmüller, Stefan Becker, Bert L. de Groot, Christian Griesinger

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Society Transactions · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual dipolar couplingUbiquitinChemistryNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyMolecular dynamicsProtein structureResidualBiophysicsDipoleCrystallographyComputational chemistryComputational biologyStereochemistryBiochemistryBiologyComputer scienceAlgorithmOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RDCs (residual dipolar couplings) in NMR spectroscopy provide information about protein dynamics complementary to NMR relaxation methods, especially in the previously inaccessible time window between the protein correlation time tau(c) and 50 micros. For ubiquitin, new modes of motion of the protein backbone could be detected using RDC-based techniques. An ensemble of ubiquitin based on these RDC values is found to comprise all different conformations that ubiquitin adopts upon binding to different recognition proteins. These conformations in protein-protein complexes had been derived from 46 X-ray structures. Thus, for ubiquitin recognition by other proteins, conformational selection rather than induced fit seems to be the dominant mechanism.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical Society TransactionsSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207