Assembly and Stability of the Shiga Toxins Investigated by Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic investigation into the assembly and stability of native and modified subunits of the Shiga toxins (Stx) in vitro is described. Analysis of the assembly of native and modified B subunits of Stx1 and Stx2 in solution, carried out using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ES-MS), suggests that the lower thermodynamic stability of the B subunit homopentamer of Stx2, compared to that of Stx1, is due to the presence of a repulsive interaction involving Asp70 of the Stx2 B subunit. In Stx1 B, the corresponding (spatially) residue is Arg. Using temperature-controlled ES-MS, it is shown that the Stx1 and Stx2 holotoxins exhibit differences in their resistance to temperature- and acid-induced dissociation. However, both Stx1 and Stx2 are fully assembled at pH >3.5 and 37 degrees C. This finding has several important biological implications. First, it argues against the likelihood that the difference in Stx1 and Stx2 toxicity arises from differential dissociation of the toxins during the intracellular trafficking steps of the cellular intoxication process. Second, it implies that the activation of the A subunits of Stx1 and Stx2 by enzymatic cleavage must occur while the A subunit is assembled with the B subunit homopentamer. It is, therefore, proposed that the differential toxicities of Stx1 and Stx2 reflect the relative efficiencies of intracellular activation of the A subunits.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".