MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186041243 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-184-1:317

Vector Geometry Mapping: A Method to Characterize the Conformation of Helix-Loop-Helix Calcium-Binding Proteins

2003· article· en· W2186041243 on OpenAlex
Kyoko L. Yap, James B. Ames, Mark B. Swindells, Mitsuhiko Ikura

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Eye InstituteHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsHelix (gastropod)CrystallographyConformational changeBasic helix-loop-helixChemistryProtein structureBiophysicsStereochemistryDNA-binding proteinBiologyBiochemistryTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Members of the EF-hand protein superfamily (1) share a common calciumbinding helix-loop-helix motif as a building block, whose conformation essentially determines biological function. It has been well demonstrated that specific binding of Ca2+to the loop alters conformation of the motif, involving rearrangement of the two helices of the EF-hand in three-dimensional (3-D) space (reviewed in refs. 2–4. In Ca2+-sensor proteins within this superfamily, the Ca2+-induced conformational change is responsible for the sensor activity (2). For many years this change has been quantitatively characterized by the interhelical angle measured between the two helices (5–9). Recently, Nelson and Chazin (10) reported an interaction-based analysis for examining conformational change in EF-hand proteins, including computation of distance difference matrices (calculated between each pair of Cα atoms in two structures). Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. The former approach gives a single, descriptive parameter for a given EF-hand, but is obviously insufficient to describe the conformation and its change in detail. The latter approach is more comprehensive and is sensitive to small conformational changes, but yields a large number of parameters to be interpreted by the user. In this chapter, we describe a method termed Vector Geometry Mapping (VGM), an extension of the “interhelical angle”approach, which produces amore complete and descriptive picture of EF-hand conformations.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.234 · 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