The prion 2018 round tables (I): the structure of PrP <sup>Sc</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the structure of PrPSc is without doubt a sine qua non to understand not only PrPSc propagation, but also critical features of that process such as the strain phenomenon and transmission barriers. While elucidation of the PrPSc structure has been full of difficulties, we now have a large amount of structural information that allows us to begin to understand it. This commentary article summarizes a round table that took place within the Prion 2018 meeting held in Santiago de Compostela to discuss the state of the art in this matter. Two alternative models of PrPSc exist: the PIRIBS and the 4-rung β-solenoid models. Both of them have relevant features. The 4-rung β-solenoid model agrees with experimental constraints of brain derived PrPSc obtained from cryo-EM and X-ray fiber diffraction studies. Furthermore, it allows facile accommodation of the bulky glycans that decorate brain-derived PrPSc. On the other hand, the infectious PrP23-144 amyloid exhibits a PIRIBS architecture. Perhaps, both types of structure co-exist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.029 |
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".