Insights into the interaction dynamics between volatile anesthetics and tubulin through computational molecular modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General anesthetics, able to reversibly suppress all conscious brain activity, have baffled medical science for decades, and little is known about their exact molecular mechanism of action. Given the recent scientific interest in the exploration of microtubules as putative functional targets of anesthetics, and the involvement thereof in neurodegenerative disorders, the present work focuses on the investigation of the interaction between human tubulin and four volatile anesthetics: ethylene, desflurane, halothane and methoxyflurane. Interaction sites on different tubulin isotypes are predicted through docking, along with an estimate of the binding affinity ranking. The analysis is expanded by Molecular Dynamics simulations, where the dimers are allowed to freely interact with anesthetics in the surrounding medium. This allowed for the determination of interaction hotspots on tubulin dimers, which could be linked to different functional consequences on the microtubule architecture, and confirmed the weak, Van der Waals-type interaction, occurring within hydrophobic pockets on the dimer. Both docking and MD simulations highlighted significantly weaker interactions of ethylene, consistent with its far lower potency as a general anesthetic. Overall, simulations suggest a transient interaction between anesthetics and microtubules in general anesthesia, and contact probability analysis shows interaction strengths consistent with the potencies of the four compounds. Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".