<i>raf</i> RBD and Ubiquitin Proteins Share Similar Folds, Folding Rates and Mechanisms Despite Having Unrelated Amino Acid Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent experimental and theoretical studies in protein folding suggest that the rates and underlying mechanisms by which proteins attain the native state are largely determined by the topological complexity of a specific fold rather than by the fine details of the amino acid sequences. However, such arguments are based upon the examination of a limited number of protein folds. To test this view, we sought to investigate whether proteins belonging to the ubiquitin superfamily display similar folding behavior. To do so, we compared the folding-unfolding transitions of mammalian ubiquitin (mUbi) with those of its close yeast homologue (yUbi), and to those of the structurally related Ras binding domain (RBD) of the serine/threonine kinase raf that displays no apparent sequence homology with the ubiquitin family members. As demonstrated for mUbi [Krantz, B. A., and Sosnick, T. R. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 11696-11701], we show that a two-state transition model with no burst phase intermediate can describe folding of both yUbi and raf RBD. We further demonstrate that (1) all three proteins refold at rates that are within 1 order of magnitude (1800, 1100, and 370 s(-1) for mUbi, raf RBD, and yUbi, respectively), (2) both mUbi and raf RBD display similar refolding heterogeneity, and (3) the folding free energy barriers of both mUbi and raf RBD display a similar temperature dependence and sensitivity to a stabilizing agent or to mutations of a structurally equivalent central core residue. These findings are consistent with the view that rates and mechanisms for protein folding depend mostly on the complexity of the native structure topology rather than on the fine details of the amino acid sequence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".