MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164730735 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0239.focus

DNA and lipid bilayers: self-assembly and insertion

2008· article· en· W2164730735 on OpenAlexaff
Syma Khalid, Peter J. Bond, John Holyoake, Robert W. Hawtin, Mark S.P. Sansom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsDodecameric proteinLipid bilayerBilayerDNAChemistryLipid bilayer phase behaviorBiophysicsMolecular dynamicsLipid bilayer mechanicsModel lipid bilayerMoleculeCrystallographyMembraneBiochemistryBiologyComputational chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA-lipid complexes are of biomedical importance as delivery vectors for gene therapy. To gain insight into the interactions of DNA with zwitterionic and cationic (dimyristoyltrimethylammonium propane (DMTAP)) lipids, we have used coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations to study the self-assembly of DPPC and DPPC/DMTAP lipid bilayers in the presence of a DNA dodecamer. We observed the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayers from initial systems containing randomly placed lipids, water-counterions and DNA. In both the DPPC and DPPC/DMTAP simulations, the DNA molecule is located at the water-lipid headgroup interface, lying approximately parallel to the plane of the bilayer. We have also calculated the potential of mean force for transferring a DNA dodecamer through a DPPC/DMTAP bilayer. A high energetic barrier to DNA insertion into the hydrophobic core of the bilayer is observed. The DNA adopts a transmembrane orientation only in this region. Local bilayer deformation in the vicinity of the DNA molecule is observed, largely as a result of the DNA-DMTAP headgroup attraction.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207