MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386461582 · doi:10.3390/insects14090745

Key Amino Acid Residues Involved in Binding Interactions between Bactrocera minax Odorant-Binding Protein 3 (BminOBP3) and Undecanol

2023· article· en· W4386461582 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ling Yang, Xiaoli Tian, Lianyou Gui, Fulian Wang, Guohui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMutantOdorant-binding proteinBiologyAlanineAmino acidHomology modelingBinding siteBiochemistryLigand (biochemistry)Plasma protein bindingDocking (animal)StereochemistryReceptorChemistryEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect odorant-binding proteins (OBPs) are significant in binding and transporting odorants to specific receptors. Our previous study demonstrated that BminOBP3 exhibited a strong affinity with undecanol. However, the binding mechanism between them remains unknown. Here, using homology modeling and molecular docking, we found that the C-terminus (I116-P122), especially the hydrogenbonds formed by the last three amino acid residues (V120, F121, and P122) of the C-terminus, is essential for BminOBP3′s ligand binding. Mutant binding assays showed that the mutant T-OBP3 that lacks C-terminus (I116-P122) displayed a significant decrease in affinity to undecanol (Ki = 19.57 ± 0.45) compared with that of the wild-type protein BminOBP3 (Ki = 11.59 ± 0.51). In the mutant 3D2a that lacks F121 and P122 and the mutant V120A in which V120 was replaced by alanine, the bindings to undecanol were completely abolished. In conclusion, the C-terminus plays a crucial role in the binding interactions between BminOBP3 and undecanol. Based on the results, we discussed the ligand-binding process of BminOBP3.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207