MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887114054 · doi:10.26508/lsa.201800072

Beetle luciferases with naturally red- and blue-shifted emission

2018· article· en· W2887114054 on OpenAlexfundno aff
César Carrasco‐López, Juliana C. Ferreira, Nathan M. Lui, Stefan Schramm, Romain Berraud‐Pache, Isabelle Navizet, Santosh Panjikar, Pancě Naumov, Wael M. Rabeh

Bibliographic record

VenueLife Science Alliance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian SynchrotronYork UniversityAgence Nationale de la RechercheAbu Dhabi Education CouncilNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsLuciferasesBioluminescenceLuciferaseLight emissionMutagenesisFirefly protocolBlue lightLampyridaeBiologyActive siteLuciferinChemistryBiophysicsBiochemistryEnzymeEvolutionary biologyOpticsPhysicsMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The different colors of light emitted by bioluminescent beetles that use an identical substrate and chemiexcitation reaction sequence to generate light remain a challenging and controversial mechanistic conundrum. The crystal structures of two beetle luciferases with red- and blue-shifted light relative to the green yellow light of the common firefly species provide direct insight into the molecular origin of the bioluminescence color. The structure of a blue-shifted green-emitting luciferase from the firefly Amydetes vivianii is monomeric with a structural fold similar to the previously reported firefly luciferases. The only known naturally red-emitting luciferase from the glow-worm Phrixothrix hirtus exists as tetramers and octamers. Structural and computational analyses reveal varying aperture between the two domains enclosing the active site. Mutagenesis analysis identified two conserved loops that contribute to the color of the emitted light. These results are expected to advance comparative computational studies into the conformational landscape of the luciferase reaction sequence.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLife Science AllianceSame topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchFrench-language works237,207