MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376618013 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2902836/v1

In silico Analysis and Molecular Dynamic Modeling of Three-dimensional Structure of Glutelin type-B 5-like Proteins from Proso Millet: Effects of Temperature and Electric Field

2023· preprint· en· W4376618013 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Akharume, Ashutosh Singh, Konstantin V. Korotkov, Akinbode A. Adedeji

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureKentucky Agricultural Experiment StationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsGlutelinRadius of gyrationElectric fieldMolecular dynamicsDipoleAccessible surface areaProtein secondary structureRoot mean squareChemistryMaterials scienceCrystallographyStorage proteinChemical physicsComputational chemistryPhysicsBiochemistryPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study determined the 3D structure of glutelin type-B 5-like (GTB) protein from proso millet using homology modeling and investigated the effects of simulated temperature and static electric field on its secondary structures, solvent accessibility surface area (SASA), the radius of gyration (Rg), root mean square deviation (RMSD), and total dipole moment. The result showed that the structure of GTB is majorly a protomer that comprises three monomers with one jelly-like β-barrel and two extended helix domains, and the remaining 35% as coils. Based on the molecular dynamic simulation, the secondary structure of the protein was not disrupted at temperatures between 300–400 K and static electric fields of between 0.1-3 V/nm, albeit the loss of a few amino acid residues. The RMSD increased significantly with an increase in temperature, static electric field, and simulation time. But the Rg and SASA decreased for the same conditions, suggesting that, the protein structure is compacting during thermal and electrical treatment.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.348
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207