MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227551804 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004699

Josephin Domain Structural Conformations Explored by Metadynamics in Essential Coordinates

2016· article· en· W2227551804 on OpenAlexaff
Marco A. Deriu, Gianvito Grasso, Jack A. Tuszyński, Diego Gallo, Umberto Morbiducci, Andrea Danani

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Supercomputing Centre SingaporeCentro Svizzero di Calcolo Scientifico
KeywordsMetadynamicsMolecular dynamicsEnergy landscapeDomain (mathematical analysis)Conformational ensemblesChemistryProtein structurePhysicsComputational chemistryMathematicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Josephin Domain (JD), i.e. the N-terminal domain of Ataxin 3 (At3) protein, is an interesting example of competition between physiological function and aggregation risk. In fact, the fibrillogenesis of Ataxin 3, responsible for the spinocerebbellar ataxia 3, is strictly related to the JD thermodynamic stability. Whereas recent NMR studies have demonstrated that different JD conformations exist, the likelihood of JD achievable conformational states in solution is still an open issue. Marked differences in the available NMR models are located in the hairpin region, supporting the idea that JD has a flexible hairpin in dynamic equilibrium between open and closed states. In this work we have carried out an investigation on the JD conformational arrangement by means of both classical molecular dynamics (MD) and Metadynamics employing essential coordinates as collective variables. We provide a representation of the free energy landscape characterizing the transition pathway from a JD open-like structure to a closed-like conformation. Findings of our in silico study strongly point to the closed-like conformation as the most likely for a Josephin Domain in water.

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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207