The RON2-AMA1 Interaction is a Critical Step in Moving Junction-Dependent Invasion by Apicomplexan Parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obligate intracellular Apicomplexa parasites share a unique invasion mechanism involving a tight interaction between the host cell and the parasite surfaces called the moving junction (MJ). The MJ, which is the anchoring structure for the invasion process, is formed by secretion of a macromolecular complex (RON2/4/5/8), derived from secretory organelles called rhoptries, into the host cell membrane. AMA1, a protein secreted from micronemes and associated with the parasite surface during invasion, has been shown in vitro to bind the MJ complex through a direct association with RON2. Here we show that RON2 is inserted as an integral membrane protein in the host cell and, using several interaction assays with native or recombinant proteins, we define the region that binds AMA1. Our studies were performed both in Toxoplasma gondii and Plasmodium falciparum and although AMA1 and RON2 proteins have diverged between Apicomplexa species, we show an intra-species conservation of their interaction. More importantly, invasion inhibition assays using recombinant proteins demonstrate that the RON2-AMA1 interaction is crucial for both T. gondii and P. falciparum entry into their host cells. This work provides the first evidence that AMA1 uses the rhoptry neck protein RON2 as a receptor to promote invasion by Apicomplexa parasites.
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 | 0.001 | 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".