MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electron cryomicroscopy of rotary ATPases

2017· article· en· W4389022445 on OpenAlexaffabout
John L. Rubinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicATP Synthase and ATPases Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsATP hydrolysisATP synthaseCryo-electron microscopyATPaseMolecular motorAdenosine triphosphateBiophysicsTransmembrane proteinMolecular machineV-ATPaseTransmembrane domainChemiosmosisChemistryBiochemistryEnzymeBiologyNanotechnologyMembraneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ion‐translocating rotary ATPases serve either as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthases, using energy from a transmembrane ion motive force to create the cell's supply of ATP, or as transmembrane ion pumps that are powered by ATP hydrolysis. The members of this family of enzymes each contain two rotary motors: one that couples ion translocation to rotation and one that couples rotation to ATP synthesis or hydrolysis. Our group uses electron cryomicroscopy (cryo‐EM) of single protein particles to study the structures of rotary ATPases. We also work to develop new methods for cryo‐EM to facilitate these studies. Our recent studies have not only illuminated the structures of these fascinating molecular motors at unprecedented resolution, but have also started to uncover their dynamics through computational isolation of the different conformations of the enzymes that exist simultaneously in solution. This lecture will describe the latest structures we have determined for the mitochondrial ATP synthase and proton pumping V‐ATPase, and what we have learned about how these enzymes function and how they interact with molecules that affect their activities. Support or Funding Information Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Research Chairs

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicATP Synthase and ATPases ResearchFrench-language works237,207