Probing the self‐association, intermolecular contacts, and folding propensity of amelogenin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amelogenins are an intrinsically disordered protein family that plays a major role in the development of tooth enamel, one of the most highly mineralized materials in nature. Monomeric porcine amelogenin possesses random coil and residual secondary structures, but it is not known which sequence regions would be conformationally attractive to potential enamel matrix targets such as other amelogenins (self-assembly), other matrix proteins, cell surfaces, or biominerals. To address this further, we investigated recombinant porcine amelogenin (rP172) using "solvent engineering" techniques to simultaneously promote native-like structure and induce amelogenin oligomerization in a manner that allows identification of intermolecular contacts between amelogenin molecules. We discovered that in the presence of 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol (TFE) significant folding transitions and stabilization occurred primarily within the N- and C-termini, while the polyproline Type II central domain was largely resistant to conformational transitions. Seven Pro residues (P2, P127, P130, P139, P154, P157, P162) exhibited conformational response to TFE, and this indicates these Pro residues act as folding enhancers in rP172. The remaining Pro residues resisted TFE perturbations and thus act as conformational stabilizers. We also noted that TFE induced rP172 self-association via the formation of intermolecular contacts involving P4-H6, V19-P33, and E40-T58 regions of the N-terminus. Collectively, these results confirm that the N- and C-termini of amelogenin are conformationally responsive and represent potential interactive sites for amelogenin-target interactions during enamel matrix mineralization. Conversely, the Pro, Gln central domain is resistant to folding and this may have important functional significance for amelogenin.
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) | 0.000 | 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".