Rate and extent of protein localization is controlled by peptide‐binding domain association kinetics and morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein localization is an important regulatory mechanism in many cell signaling pathways such as cytoskeletal organization and genetic regulation. The specific mechanism of protein localization determines the kinetics and morphological constraints of protein translocation, and thus affects the rate and extent of localization. To investigate the affect of localization kinetics and morphology on protein localization, we designed a protein localization system based on Ca(2+)-calmodulin and Src homology 3 domain binding peptides that can translocate between specific localizations in response to a Ca(2+) signal. We used a stochastic biomolecular simulator to predict that such a protein localization system will exhibit slower and less complete translocations when the association kinetics of a binding domain and peptide are reduced. As well, we predicted that increasing the diffusion resistance by manipulating the morphology of the system would similarly impair translocation speed and completeness. We then constructed a network of synthetic fusion proteins and showed that these predictions could be qualitatively confirmed in vitro. This work provides a basis for explaining the different characteristics (rate and extent) of protein transport and localization in cells as a consequence of the kinetics and morphology of the transport mechanism.
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".