MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758929410 · doi:10.1021/acs.biomac.7b01057

Structural and Mechanical Roles for the C-Terminal Nonrepetitive Domain Become Apparent in Recombinant Spider Aciniform Silk

2017· article· en· W2758929410 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingling Xu, Thierry Lefèvre, Kathleen E. Orrell, Qing Meng, Michéle Auger, Xiang‐Qin Liu, Jan K. Rainey

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilk-based biomaterials and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalPROTEO
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsCTDSILKSpider silkSpiderChemistryPolymer scienceBiophysicsBiologyMaterials scienceComposite materialZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spider aciniform (or wrapping) silk is the toughest of the seven types of spider silks/glue due to a combination of high elasticity and strength. Like most spider silk proteins (spidroins), aciniform spidroin (AcSp1) has a large core repetitive domain flanked by relatively short N- and C-terminal nonrepetitive domains (the NTD and CTD, respectively). The major ampullate silk protein (MaSp) CTD has been shown to control protein solubility and fiber formation, but the aciniform CTD function remains unknown. Here, we compare fiber mechanical properties, solution-state structuring, and fibrous state secondary structural composition, and orientation relative to native aciniform silk for two AcSp1 repeat units with or without fused AcSp1- and MaSp-derived CTDs alongside three AcSp1 repeat units without a CTD. The native AcSp1 CTD uniquely modulated fiber mechanical properties, relative to all other constructs, directly correlating to a native-like structural transformation and alignment.

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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicSilk-based biomaterials and applicationsFrench-language works237,207