MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183019853 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00868

Binding of Disordered Peptides to Kelch: Insights from Enhanced Sampling Simulations

2015· article· en· W2183019853 on OpenAlexafffund
Trang Nhu, Wing‐Yiu Choy, Mikko Karttunen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooCompute Canada
KeywordsMetadynamicsMolecular dynamicsBiophysicsChemistryBinding siteComputational biologyPlasma protein bindingBiologyBiochemistryComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keap1 protein plays an essential role in regulating cellular oxidative stress response and is a crucial binding hub for multiple proteins, several of which are intrinsically disordered proteins (IDP). Among Kelch's IDP binding partners, NRF2 and PTMA are the two most interesting cases. They share a highly similar binding motif; however, NRF2 binds to Kelch with a binding affinity of approximately 100-fold higher than that of PTMA. In this study, we perform an exhaustive sampling composed of 6 μs well-tempered metadynamics and 2 μs unbiased molecular dynamics (MD) simulations aiming at characterizing the binding mechanisms and structural properties of these two peptides. Our results agree with previous experimental observations that PTMA is remarkably more disordered than NRF2 in both the free and bound states. This explains PTMA's lower binding affinity. Our extensive sampling also provides valuable insights into the vast conformational ensembles of both NRF2 and PTMA, supports the hypothesis of coupled folding-binding, and confirms the essential role of linear motifs in IDP binding.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207