Membrane catalysis of peptide–receptor bindingThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue entitled “Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular & Cellular Biology 52nd Annual Meeting — Protein Folding: Principles and Diseases” and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The membrane catalysis hypothesis states that a peptide ligand activates its target receptor after an initial interaction with the surrounding membrane. Upon membrane binding and interaction, the ligand is structured such that receptor binding and activation is encouraged. As evidence for this hypothesis, there are numerous studies concerning the conformation that peptides adopt in membrane mimetic environments. This mini-review analyzes the features of ligand peptides with an available high-resolution membrane-induced structure and a characterized membrane-binding region. At the peptide-membrane interface, both amphipathic helices and turn structures are commonly formed in peptide ligands and both hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions can be responsible for membrane binding. Apelin is the ligand to the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) named APJ, with various important physiological effects, which we have recently characterized both in solution and bound to anionic micelles. The structural changes that apelin undergoes when binding to micelles provide strong evidence for membrane catalysis of apelin-APJ interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".