MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040700855 · doi:10.1016/j.bbrep.2015.03.007

Structural and functional comparison of hexahistidine tagged and untagged forms of small multidrug resistance protein, EmrE

2015· article· en· W2040700855 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Junaid S. Qazi, Raymond Chew, Denice C. Bay, Raymond J. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Biophysics Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsDissociation constantChemistryMembrane proteinBiophysicsBiochemistryMembraneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EmrE is a member of the small multidrug resistance (SMR) protein family in Escherichia coli. EmrE confers resistance to a wide variety of quaternary cation compounds (QCCs) as an efflux transporter driven by proton motive force. The purification yield of most membrane proteins are challenging because of difficulties in over expressing, isolating and solubilizing them and the addition of an affinity tag often improves purification. The purpose of this study is to compare the structure and function of hexahistidinyl (His6) tagged (T-EmrE) and untagged (UT-EmrE) versions of EmrE. In vivo QCC resistance assays determined that T-EmrE demonstrated reduced resistance as compared to UT-EmrE. We isolated EmrE using the two different purification methods, an organic solvent extraction method used to isolate UT-EmrE and nickel affinity chromatography of T-EmrE. All proteins were solubilized in the same buffered n-dodecyl-β-d-maltopyranoside (DDM) detergent and their conformations were examined in the presence/absence of different QCCs. In vitro analysis of protein multimerization using SDS-Tricine PAGE and dynamic light scattering analysis revealed that both proteins predominated as monomers, but the formation of dimers was more constant and uniform in T-EmrE compared to UT-EmrE. The aromatic residue conformations of both proteins indicate that T-EmrE form is more aqueous exposed than UT-EmrE, but UT-EmrE appeared to have a more dynamic environment surrounding its aromatic residues. Using fluorescence to obtain QCC ligand-binding curves indicated that the two forms had differences in dissociation constants (Kd) and maximum specific one-site binding (Bmax) values for particular QCCs. In vitro analyses of both proteins demonstrated subtle but significant differences in multimerization and QCC binding. In vivo analysis indicates differences caused by the addition of the tag, we also observed differences in vitro that could be a result of the tag and/or the different purification methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Biophysics ReportsSame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207