Comparing the energy landscapes for native folding and aggregation of PrP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein sequences are evolved to encode generally one folded structure, out of a nearly infinite array of possible folds. Underlying this code is a funneled free energy landscape that guides folding to the native conformation. Protein misfolding and aggregation are also a manifestation of free-energy landscapes. The detailed mechanisms of these processes are poorly understood, but often involve rare, transient species and a variety of different pathways. The inherent complexity of misfolding has hampered efforts to measure aggregation pathways and the underlying energy landscape, especially using traditional methods where ensemble averaging obscures important rare and transient events. We recently studied the misfolding and aggregation of prion protein by examining 2 monomers tethered in close proximity as a dimer, showing how the steps leading to the formation of a stable aggregated state can be resolved in the single-molecule limit and the underlying energy landscape thereby reconstructed. This approach allows a more quantitative comparison of native folding versus misfolding, including fundamental differences in the dynamics for misfolding. By identifying key steps and interactions leading to misfolding, it should help to identify potential drug targets. Here we describe the importance of characterizing free-energy landscapes for aggregation and the challenges involved in doing so, and we discuss how single-molecule studies can help test proposed structural models for PrP aggregates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".