MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387668161 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-v305j

In silico investigation of the interaction between α-synuclein aggregates and organic supramolecular assemblies

2023· preprint· en· W4387668161 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Le Bras, Yves Dory, Benoı̂t Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de NamurFonds de recherche du QuébecFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsStackingSupramolecular chemistryChemical physicsMoleculeMolecular dynamicsChemistrySelf-assemblyAggregate (composite)NanotechnologyIn silicoComputational chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

α-synuclein (αSYN), and its tendancy to self-aggregate, plays an important role in the development of Parkinson’s disease (PD). αSYN aggregates are characterized by a stacking of αSYN chains and an interaction between the stackings to form dimers-like structures. The stability of those supramolecular assemblies are ensured by the pres- ence of numerous residues that adopt a "β-strand" and then "β-sheet" conformations, implying multiple interactions within and between the chains of αSYN. Following our previous study on the ability for small organic molecules to form columnar assemblies (organic nanotubes, ONs) [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2021], we propose here to unravel the ability of these ONs to interact with αSYN aggregates. More than an interaction, we expect the organic molecules to avoid the complete aggregation process (dimerization) and ideally to induce a destabilization of the stacking. Both molecular dynamics simulation and quantum mechanical-based calculations are used to identify the key parameters of the interaction and the resulting (de)stabilization of the assembly.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207