Surface Properties and Conformation of Nephila clavipes Spider Recombinant Silk Proteins at the Air−Water Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dragline fiber of spiders is composed of two proteins, the major ampullate spidroins I and II (MaSpI and MaSpII). To better understand the assembly mechanism and the properties of these proteins, the adsorption behavior of the recombinant proteins of the spider Nephila clavipes produced by Nexia Biotechnologies Inc. has been studied at the air-water interface using ellipsometry, surface pressure, rheological, and infrared measurements. The results show that the adsorption is more rapid and more molecules are present at the interface for MaSpII than for MaSpI. MaSpII has thus a higher affinity for the interface than MaSpI, which is consistent with its higher aggregation propensity in water. The films formed at the interface consist of networks containing a high content of intermolecular beta-sheets as revealed by the in situ polarization modulation infrared absorption reflection spectra. The infrared results further demonstrate that, for MaSpI, the beta-sheets are formed as soon as the proteins adsorb to the interface while for MaSpII the beta-sheet formation occurs more slowly. The amount of beta-sheets is lower for MaSpII than for MaSpI, most likely due to the presence of proline residues in its sequence. Both proteins form elastic films, but they are heterogeneous for MaSpI and homogeneous for MaSpII most probably as a result of a more ordered and slower aggregation process for MaSpII. This difference in their mechanism of assembly and interfacial behaviors does not seem to arise from their overall hydrophobicity or from a specific pattern of hydrophobicity, but rather from the longer polyalanine motifs, lower glycine content, and higher proline content of MaSpII. The propensity of both spidroins to form beta-sheets, especially the polyalanine blocks, suggests the participation of both proteins in the silk's beta-sheet crystallites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".