A structural approach reveals how neighbouring C2H2 zinc fingers influence DNA binding specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of an accurate protein-DNA recognition code that can predict DNA specificity from protein sequence is a central problem in biology. C2H2 zinc fingers constitute by far the largest family of DNA binding domains and their binding specificity has been studied intensively. However, despite decades of research, accurate prediction of DNA specificity remains elusive. A major obstacle is thought to be the inability of current methods to account for the influence of neighbouring domains. Here we show that this problem can be addressed using a structural approach: we build structural models for all C2H2-ZF-DNA complexes with known binding motifs and find six distinct binding modes. Each mode changes the orientation of specificity residues with respect to the DNA, thereby modulating base preference. Most importantly, the structural analysis shows that residues at the domain interface strongly and predictably influence the binding mode, and hence specificity. Accounting for predicted binding mode significantly improves prediction accuracy of predicted motifs. This new insight into the fundamental behaviour of C2H2-ZFs has implications for both improving the prediction of natural zinc finger-binding sites, and for prioritizing further experiments to complete the code. It also provides a new design feature for zinc finger engineering.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".