Definition of the Structural Elements in Plasminogen Required for High-Affinity Binding to Apolipoprotein(a): A Study Utilizing Surface Plasmon Resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is suggested to link atherosclerosis and thrombosis owing to the similarity between the apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] moiety of Lp(a) and plasminogen. Lp(a) may interfere with tPA-mediated plasminogen activation in fibrinolysis, thereby generating a hypercoaguable state in vivo. The present study employed surface plasmon resonance (SPR) to examine the binding interaction between plasminogen and a physiologically relevant, 17-kringle recombinant apo(a) species [17K r-apo(a)] in real time. Native, intact Glu(1)-plasminogen bound to apo(a) with substantially higher affinity (K(D) approximately 0.3 microM) compared to a series of plasminogen fragments (K1-5, K1-3, K4, K5P, and tail domain) that interacted weakly with apo(a) (K(D) > 50 microM). Treatment of Glu(1)-plasminogen with citraconic anhydride (a lysine modification reagent) completely abolished binding to wild-type 17K r-apo(a), whereas citraconylated 17K r-apo(a) decreased binding to wild-type Glu(1)-plasminogen by approximately 50%; inhibition of binding was also observed using the lysine analogue epsilon-aminocaproic acid. Whereas native Glu(1)-plasminogen exhibited monophasic binding to 17K r-apo(a), truncated Lys(78)-plasminogen exhibited biphasic binding. Altering Glu(1)-plasminogen from its native, closed conformation (in chloride buffer) to an open conformation (in acetate buffer) also yielded biphasic isotherms. These SPR data are consistent with a two-state kinetic model in which a conformational change in the plasminogen-apo(a) complex may occur following the initial binding event. Differential binding kinetics between Glu(1)-/Lys(78)-plasminogen and apo(a) may explain why Lp(a) is a stronger inhibitor of tPA-mediated Glu(1)-plasminogen activation compared to Lys(78)-plasminogen activation.
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".