Validation of Membrane Protein Topology Models by Oxidative Labeling and Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-assisted topology predictions are widely used to build low-resolution structural models of integral membrane proteins (IMPs). Experimental validation of these models by traditional methods is labor intensive and requires modifications that might alter the IMP native conformation. This work employs oxidative labeling coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) as a validation tool for computer-generated topology models. ·OH exposure introduces oxidative modifications in solvent-accessible regions, whereas buried segments (e.g., transmembrane helices) are non-oxidizable. The Escherichia coli protein WaaL (O-antigen ligase) is predicted to have 12 transmembrane helices and a large extramembrane domain (Pérez et al., Mol. Microbiol. 2008, 70, 1424). Tryptic digestion and LC-MS/MS were used to map the oxidative labeling behavior of WaaL. Met and Cys exhibit high intrinsic reactivities with ·OH, making them sensitive probes for solvent accessibility assays. Overall, the oxidation pattern of these residues is consistent with the originally proposed WaaL topology. One residue (M151), however, undergoes partial oxidation despite being predicted to reside within a transmembrane helix. Using an improved computer algorithm, a slightly modified topology model was generated that places M151 closer to the membrane interface. On the basis of the labeling data, it is concluded that the refined model more accurately reflects the actual topology of WaaL. We propose that the combination of oxidative labeling and MS represents a useful strategy for assessing the accuracy of IMP topology predictions, supplementing data obtained in traditional biochemical assays. In the future, it might be possible to incorporate oxidative labeling data directly as constraints in topology prediction algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 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".