MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W309655671 · doi:10.1007/0-306-46864-6_41

Design and synthesis of a lactam bridge stabilized coiled-coil template for library display

2006· book-chapter· en· W309655671 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. Houston, Randall T. Irvin, Robert S. Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Electromagnetic coilCoiled coilCoiled tubingEngineeringComputer scienceEngineering drawingMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringChemistryMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peptide libraries made up of millions of randomized peptide sequences have proven useful for the identification of novel ligands that maybe of interest for the development of medicinally active compounds [1, 2]. However, simple linear peptides libraries possess considerable conformational flexibility and can populate multiple random-like conformations. An alternative to linear peptide libraries is to incorporate randomized positions in stable secondary structural elements. To this end we envisaged utilizing the well characterized secondary structural element, the two-stranded α-helical coiled-coil as a template for peptide library development. The coiled-coil structure consists of two amphipathic helices wrapped around each other with a left-handed super twist. The coiled-coil is characterized by a heptad repeat denoted (abcdefg )n where positions a and d are typically occupied by hydrophobic amino acids (Figure 1). Design and synthesis of a lactam bridge stabilized coiled-coil template for library display

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooksSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207