MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464323932 · doi:10.1038/srep28486

STARD6 on steroids: solution structure, multiple timescale backbone dynamics and ligand binding mechanism

2016· article· en· W2464323932 on OpenAlexafffund
Danny Létourneau, Mikaël Bédard, Jérôme Cabana, Andrée Lefèbvre, Jean‐Guy Lehoux, Pierre Lavigne

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLigand (biochemistry)MicrosecondHelix (gastropod)BiophysicsChemistryBinding siteMolecular dynamicsMechanism (biology)StereochemistryBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsComputational chemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

START domain proteins are conserved α/β helix-grip fold that play a role in the non-vesicular and intracellular transport of lipids and sterols. The mechanism and conformational changes permitting the entry of the ligand into their buried binding sites is not well understood. Moreover, their functions and the identification of cognate ligands is still an active area of research. Here, we report the solution structure of STARD6 and the characterization of its backbone dynamics on multiple time-scales through (15)N spin-relaxation and amide exchange studies. We reveal for the first time the presence of concerted fluctuations in the Ω1 loop and the C-terminal helix on the microsecond-millisecond time-scale that allows for the opening of the binding site and ligand entry. We also report that STARD6 binds specifically testosterone. Our work represents a milestone for the study of ligand binding mechanism by other START domains and the elucidation of the biological function of STARD6.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207