MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318687605 · doi:10.1021/bi500784g

Structural Characterization of the C3 Domain of Cardiac Myosin Binding Protein C and Its Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy-Related R502W Mutant

2014· article· en· W2318687605 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaolu Linda Zhang, Soumya De, Lawrence P. McIntosh, Mark Paetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsSarcomereHypertrophic cardiomyopathyMutantMutationMyosinCardiac muscleImmunoglobulin domainBiologyCell biologyChemistryGeneticsMyocyteGeneBiochemistryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human cardiac myosin binding protein C (cMyBP-C), a thick filament protein found within the sarcomere of cardiac muscle, regulates muscle contraction and is essential for proper muscle function. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), a genetic disease affecting 1 in 500 people, is the major cause of death in young athletes. It is caused by genetic mutations within sarcomeric proteins. Forty-two percent of the HCM-related mutations are found in cMyBP-C. Here we present the nuclear magnetic resonance-derived structural ensembles of the wild-type cMyBP-C C3 domain and its HCM-related R502W mutant. The C3 domain adopts an immunoglobulin-like fold, and mutation of the exposed Arg502 to a tryptophan does not perturb its structure, dynamics, or stability. However, the R502W mutation does alter the predicted electrostatic properties of the C3 domain. We hypothesize that this mutation, and other HCM-linked mutations found within the same domain, may directly disrupt the interaction of cMyBP-C with other sarcomeric proteins.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207