MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043527042

Structure and function of Bacillus thuringiensis pore-forming insecticidal toxins

2004· article· en· W7043527042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacillus thuringiensisMidgutToxinTransmembrane proteinMutantCell membraneTransmembrane domainMembrane proteinBacteria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis is the most extensively used environment-friendly bioinsecticide worldwide. It produces a variety of crystalline proteins which are specifically lethal to different insect species. Following solubilization in the midgut lumen of susceptible insect larvae and binding to specific receptors located on the surface of the luminal membrane of midgut epithelial cells, the toxins insert into the membrane and form pores that abolish transmembrane ionic gradients which are vital for cellular functions. The three-dimensional structures of four B. thuringiensis Cry toxins have been elucidated. They share a similar three-domain structure in which domain I, composed of amphipathic α-helices, plays a crucial role in pore formation. The other two domains are composed of β-sheets and are responsible for receptor binding and toxin specificity. The mechanism by which these toxins insert into the cell membrane remains one of the most challenging biophysical questions regarding their mode of action. It involves extensive conformational changes in the toxin molecule and assembly of an oligomeric structure composed of a yet undetermined number of toxin subunits. A better understanding of these events is gradually emerging from the analysis of the functional properties of genetically engineered mutant toxins using a variety of biophysical techniques.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207