Protein–protein interactions between the bilirubin-conjugating UDPglucuronosyltransferase UGT1A1 and its shorter isoform 2 regulatory partner derived from alternative splicing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oligomerization of UGTs [UDP (uridine diphosphate)-glucuronosyltransferases] modulates their enzyme activities. Recent findings also indicate that glucuronidation is negatively regulated by the formation of inactive oligomeric complexes between UGT1A enzymes [i1 (isoform 1)] and an enzymatically inactive alternatively spliced i2 (isoform 2). In the present paper, we assessed whether deletion of the UGT-interacting domains previously reported to be critical for enzyme function might be involved in i1-i2 interactions. The bilirubin-conjugating UGT1A1 was used as a prototype. We also explored whether intermolecular disulfide bonds are involved in i1-i2 interactions and the potential role of selected cysteine residues. Co-immunoprecipitation assays showed that UGT1A1 lacking the SP (signal peptide) alone or also lacking the transmembrane domain (absent from i2) did not self-interact, but still interacted with i2. The deletion of other N- or C-terminal domains did not compromise i1-i2 complex formation. Under non-reducing conditions, we also observed formation of HMWCs (high-molecular-mass complexes) for cells overexpressing i1 and i2. The presence of UGTs in these complexes was confirmed by MS. Mutation of individual cysteine residues throughout UGT1A1 did not compromise i1-i1 or i1-i2 complex formation. These findings are compatible with the hypothesis that the interaction between i1 and i2 proteins (either transient or stable) involves binding of more than one domain that probably differs from those involved in i1-i1 interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".