MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194938400 · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2021.676268

An Integrative Approach to Determine 3D Protein Structures Using Sparse Paramagnetic NMR Data and Physical Modeling

2021· article· en· W3194938400 on OpenAlexafffund
Kari Gaalswyk, Zhihong Liu, Hans J. Vogel, Justin L. MacCallum

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Molecular Biosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsParamagnetismResidual dipolar couplingChemistryCalmodulinBiological systemRelaxation (psychology)Nuclear magnetic resonanceChemical physicsNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyComputer sciencePhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paramagnetic nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) methods have emerged as powerful tools for structure determination of large, sparsely protonated proteins. However traditional applications face several challenges, including a need for large datasets to offset the sparsity of restraints, the difficulty in accounting for the conformational heterogeneity of the spin-label, and noisy experimental data. Here we propose an integrative approach to structure determination combining sparse paramagnetic NMR with physical modelling to infer approximate protein structural ensembles. We use calmodulin in complex with the smooth muscle myosin light chain kinase peptide as a model system. Despite acquiring data from samples labeled only at the backbone amide positions, we are able to produce an ensemble with an average RMSD of ∼2.8 Å from a reference X-ray crystal structure. Our approach requires only backbone chemical shifts and measurements of the paramagnetic relaxation enhancement and residual dipolar couplings that can be obtained from sparsely labeled samples.

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)0.000
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 score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Molecular BiosciencesSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207