Synthesis of Isotopically Labelled Disparlure Enantiomers and Application to the Study of Enantiomer Discrimination in Gypsy Moth Pheromone‐Binding Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the binding mechanism of disparlure (7,8)‐epoxy‐2‐methyloctadecane enantiomers with pheromone‐binding proteins (PBPs) of the gypsy moth, oxygen‐17 or 18 and 5,5,6,6‐deuterium labelled disparlure enantiomers were prepared in an efficient, enantioselective route. Key steps involve the asymmetric α‐chlorination of dodecanal by SOMO catalysis and Mitsunobu inversion of a 1,2‐chlorohydrin. The pheromone, (+)‐disparlure (7R, 8S), was tested in two infested zones, demonstrating that it is very attractive towards male gypsy moths. Studies of the binding of (+)‐disparlure and its antipode to gypsy moth PBPs by 2H &17O NMR at 600 MHz are reported. Chemical shifts, spin‐lattice relaxation decay times (T1) and transverse relaxation decay times (T2) of deuterium atoms of disparlure enantiomers in 2H NMR show that the binding of disparlure enantiomers to PBP1 differs from binding to PBP2, as expected from their opposite binding preferences (PBP1 binds (–)‐disparlure, and PBP2 binds (+)‐disparlure more strongly). Models of the disparlure enantiomers bound to one internal binding site and two external binding sites of both PBPs were constructed. The observed chemical shift changes of deuterated ligand signals, from non‐bound to bound, T1 and T2 values are correlated with results from the simulations. Together these results suggest that the disparlure enantiomers adopt distinct conformations within the binding sites of the two PBPs and interact with residues that line the sites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".