MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214960714 · doi:10.1074/jbc.r115.679811

Nanobodies as Probes for Protein Dynamics in Vitro and in Cells

2015· review· en· W2214960714 on OpenAlexafffund
Oleg Y. Dmitriev, Svetlana Lutsenko, Serge Muyldermans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIn vitroDynamics (music)Cell biologyBiophysicsComputational biologyChemistryBiologyPhysicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanobodies are the recombinant antigen-recognizing domains of the minimalistic heavy chain-only antibodies produced by camels and llamas. Nanobodies can be easily generated, effectively optimized, and variously derivatized with standard molecular biology protocols. These properties have triggered the recent explosion in the nanobody use in basic and clinical research. This review focuses on the emerging use of nanobodies for understanding and monitoring protein dynamics on the scales ranging from isolated protein domains to live cells, from nanoseconds to hours. The small size and high solubility make nanobodies uniquely suited for studying protein dynamics by NMR. The ability to produce conformation-sensitive nanobodies in cells enables studies that link structural dynamics of a target protein to its cellular behavior. The link between in vitro and in-cell dynamics, afforded by nanobodies, brings the analysis of such important events as receptor signaling, membrane protein trafficking, and protein interactions to the next level of resolution.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations98
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207