Imparting mineral affinity to proteins with thiol–labile disulfide linkages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical conjugation of bisphosphonates (BPs) to proteins is an effective means to enhance binding of proteins to mineral-containing biomaterials. BPs linked to proteins with reversible (i.e., cleavable) linkages were considered desirable over the conjugates linked with stable linkages because cleavable linkages allow protein release in free form from the mineral-containing biomaterials. To explore the feasibility of creating cleavable BP-protein conjugates, an amine- and a thiol-containing BP were conjugated to the model protein Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) with N-succinimidyl-3-(2-pyridyldithio)propionate (SPDP), which resulted in disulfide-linked BP-BSA conjugates. Although disulfide-linked conjugates were stable under aqueous conditions, the conjugates in solution were readily cleaved in the presence of physiological concentrations (approximately 0.3 mM) of the thiol compound, cysteine. The imparted mineral affinity as a result of BP conjugation, as assessed by hydroxyapatite (HA) binding in vitro, was lost upon cleavage of the disulfide-linked BP. The conjugates bound to HA were also cleavable with cysteine, but their cleavage rate was significantly reduced as compared to the conjugates in solution. In conclusion, disulfide-linked BP conjugates were shown to be readily cleavable by the amino acid cysteine and this resulted in the loss of imparted mineral affinity of the proteins. The proposed approach will be useful for modulating in vivo delivery of proteins implanted with mineral-containing biomaterials.
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) | 0.001 | 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".