The molecular interaction of human salivary histatins with polyphenolic compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary tannins are polyphenols that are effectively precipitated by salivary histatins (Hsts), a novel family of tannin binding proteins. Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), a flavan-3-ol ester related to condensed tannins (polymerized products of flavan-3-ols), and pentagalloyl glucose (PGG), a hydrolyzable tannin, were used to evaluate the molecular nature of Hst-polyphenol interaction. NMR demonstrated that Hst5, a representative Hst, bound to EGCG in a hydrophobic manner via basic and aromatic residues. In contrast, proline plays a dominant role in polyphenol binding to other tannin precipitating proteins. The role of basic and aromatic amino acids in EGCG binding was investigated using a series of modified Hsts in each of which one type of amino acid was substituted by Ala. EGCG bound to all modified Hsts, but the binding was diminished. Optimal EGCG binding also depended on the primary structure, as a polypeptide with randomised Hst5 sequence showed significantly diminished interaction with EGCG. Soluble EGCG/Hst5 complexes containing up to seven molecules of EGCG per mol of Hst5 had a 1-mM dissociation constant. In contrast to EGCG, PGG formed small soluble complexes with Hst5 consisting of only one molecule each of PGG and Hst5, as demonstrated by analytical ultracentrifugation. These complexes became insoluble upon binding of additional molecules of PGG. Diminished PGG binding was seen to a peptide with a Hst5 randomized sequence showing the importance of the primary structure. Hsts may serve to form insoluble complexes with tannins thereby preventing their absorption from the intestines and potentially harmful biological effects. In contrast the much weaker interaction with EGCG may allow its uptake into the organism and exploitation of its antioxidant effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".