MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290932723 · doi:10.1107/s2059798316000401

An overview of heavy-atom derivatization of protein crystals

2016· review· en· W2290932723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A.C.W. Pike, Elspeth F. Garman, T. Krojer, F. von Delft, Elisabeth P. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaWellcome TrustGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsDerivatizationAtom (system on chip)Resolution (logic)TRACE (psycholinguistics)Protein crystallizationDerivative (finance)Crystal (programming language)ChemistryCrystallographyChromatographyComputer scienceMass spectrometryOrganic chemistryCrystallization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy-atom derivatization is one of the oldest techniques for obtaining phase information for protein crystals and, although it is no longer the first choice, it remains a useful technique for obtaining phases for unknown structures and for low-resolution data sets. It is also valuable for confirming the chain trace in low-resolution electron-density maps. This overview provides a summary of the technique and is aimed at first-time users of the method. It includes guidelines on when to use it, which heavy atoms are most likely to work, how to prepare heavy-atom solutions, how to derivatize crystals and how to determine whether a crystal is in fact a derivative.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section D Structural BiologySame topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207