MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095438497 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-76002-8

Thermodynamic analysis of cooperative ligand binding by the ATP-binding DNA aptamer indicates a population-shift binding mechanism

2020· article· en· W3095438497 on OpenAlexafffund
Sladjana Slavkovic, Yanrui Zhu, Zachary R. Churcher, Aron A. Shoara, Anne E. Johnson, Philip E. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAptamerIsothermal titration calorimetryCooperativityCooperative bindingBinding siteLigand (biochemistry)PopulationBiophysicsDNAChemistryAdenosine triphosphateBiochemistryBiologyMolecular biologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ATP-binding DNA aptamer is often used as a model system for developing new aptamer-based biosensor methods. This aptamer follows a structure-switching binding mechanism and is unusual in that it binds two copies of its ligand. We have used isothermal titration calorimetry methods to study the binding of ATP, ADP, AMP and adenosine to the ATP-binding aptamer. Using both individual and global fitting methods, we show that this aptamer follows a positive cooperative binding mechanism. We have determined the binding affinity and thermodynamics for both ligand-binding sites. By separating the ligand-binding sites by an additional four base pairs, we engineered a variant of this aptamer that binds two adenosine ligands in an independent manner. Together with NMR and thermal stability experiments, these data indicate that the ATP-binding DNA aptamer follows a population-shift binding mechanism that is the source of the positive binding cooperativity by the aptamer.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations52
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207