MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconstructing Folding Energy Landscapes by Single-Molecule Force Spectroscopy

2014· review· en· W2167017056 on OpenAlexaff
Michael T. Woodside, Steven M. Block

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Biophysics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsEnergy landscapeForce spectroscopyNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsFolding (DSP implementation)Statistical physicsMeasure (data warehouse)SpectroscopyChemical physicsEnergy (signal processing)Characterization (materials science)DiffusionProtein foldingMoleculePhysicsBiological systemNanotechnologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceBiologyData miningEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Folding may be described conceptually in terms of trajectories over a landscape of free energies corresponding to different molecular configurations. In practice, energy landscapes can be difficult to measure. Single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS), whereby structural changes are monitored in molecules subjected to controlled forces, has emerged as a powerful tool for probing energy landscapes. We summarize methods for reconstructing landscapes from force spectroscopy measurements under both equilibrium and nonequilibrium conditions. Other complementary, but technically less demanding, methods provide a model-dependent characterization of key features of the landscape. Once reconstructed, energy landscapes can be used to study critical folding parameters, such as the characteristic transition times required for structural changes and the effective diffusion coefficient setting the timescale for motions over the landscape. We also discuss issues that complicate measurement and interpretation, including the possibility of multiple states or pathways and the effects of projecting multiple dimensions onto a single coordinate.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations232
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of BiophysicsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207