MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085073442 · doi:10.3390/cryst10090818

Glycosylation: A “Last Word” in the Protein-Mediated Biomineralization Process

2020· article· en· W3085073442 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeYork University
KeywordsBiomineralizationGlycosylationGlycoproteinIn vitroChemistryFunction (biology)Cell biologyBiochemistryProtein foldingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-translational modifications are one way that biomineral-associated cells control the function and fate of proteins. Of the ten different types of post-translational modifications, one of the most interesting and complex is glycosylation, or the covalent attachment of carbohydrates to amino acid sidechains Asn, Ser, and Thr of proteins. In this review the author surveys some of the known biomineral-associated glycoproteins and summarizes recent in vitro recombinant protein experiments which test the impact of glycosylation on biomineralization protein functions, such as nucleation, crystal growth, and matrix assembly. These in vitro studies show that glycosylation does not alter the inherent function of the polypeptide chain; rather, it either accentuates or attenuates functionality. In essence, glycosylation gives the cell the “last word” as to what degree a biomineralization protein will participate in the biomineralization process.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.252 · 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