Modeling of the Electrostatic Interaction and Catalytic Activity of [NiFe] Hydrogenases on a Planar Electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogenases are a group of enzymes that have caught the interest of researchers in renewable energies, due to their ability to catalyze the redox reaction of hydrogen. The exploitation of hydrogenases in electrochemical devices requires their immobilization on the surface of suitable electrodes, such as graphite. The orientation of the enzyme on the electrode is important to ensure a good flux of electrons to the catalytic center, through an array of iron-sulfur clusters. Here we present a computational approach to determine the possible orientations of a [NiFe] hydrogenase (PDB 1e3d) on a planar electrode, as a function of pH, salinity, and electrode potential. The calculations are based on the solution of the linearized Poisson-Boltzmann equation, using the PyGBe software. The results reveal that electrostatic interactions do not truly immobilize the enzyme on the surface of the electrode, but there is instead a dynamic equilibrium between different orientations. Nonetheless, after averaging over all thermally accessible orientations, we find significant differences related to the solution's salinity and pH, while the effect of the electrode potential is relatively weak. We also combine models for the protein adsoption-desorption equilibria and for the electron transfer between the proteins and the electrode to arrive at a prediction of the electrode's activity as a function of the enzyme concentration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".