MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624705443 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01333

Structural Characterization of a Eukaryotic Cyanase from <i>Tetranychus urticae</i>

2017· article· en· W2624705443 on OpenAlexafffund
Caleb R. Schlachter, V. Klapper, Nicky Wybouw, Taylor Radford, Thomas Van Leeuwen, Miodrag Grbić, M. Chruszcz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsOffice of ScienceBasic Energy SciencesOntario Genomics InstituteFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekVlaamse regeringArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionGovernment of CanadaOntario GenomicsGenome CanadaUniversity of South Carolina
KeywordsTetranychus urticaeBiologyCharacterization (materials science)BotanyAcariMaterials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae is a polyphagous agricultural pest and poses a high risk to global crop production as it is rapidly developing pesticide resistance. Genomic and transcriptomic analysis has revealed the presence of a remarkable cyanase gene in T. urticae and related mite species within the Acariformes lineage. Cyanase catalyzes the detoxification of cyanate and is potentially an attractive protein target for the development of new acaricides. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that within the Acariformes, the cyanase gene originates from a single horizontal gene transfer event, which precedes subsequent speciation. Our structural studies presented here compare and contrast prokaryotic cyanases to T. urticae cyanase, which all form homodecamers and have conserved active site residues, but display different surface areas between homodimers in the overall decameric structure.

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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207