MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317960174 · doi:10.1021/ja109589y

Divided-Evolution-Based Pulse Scheme for Quantifying Exchange Processes in Proteins: Powerful Complement to Relaxation Dispersion Experiments

2011· article· en· W2317960174 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Bouvignies, D. Flemming Hansen, Pramodh Vallurupalli, Lewis E. Kay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChemistryDispersion (optics)Pulse (music)Complement (music)Relaxation (psychology)Statistical physicsChemical physicsOpticsBiochemistryPhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for quantifying millisecond time scale exchange in proteins is presented based on scaling the rate of chemical exchange using a 2D (15)N, (1)H(N) experiment in which (15)N dwell times are separated by short spin-echo pulse trains. Unlike the popular Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) experiment where the effects of a radio frequency field on measured transverse relaxation rates are quantified, the new approach measures peak positions in spectra that shift as the effective exchange time regime is varied. The utility of the method is established through an analysis of data recorded on an exchanging protein-ligand system for which the exchange parameters have been accurately determined using alternative approaches. Computations establish that a combined analysis of CPMG and peak shift profiles extends the time scale that can be studied to include exchanging systems with highly skewed populations and exchange rates as slow as 20 s(-1).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207