MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066064330 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m804849200

Peptide and Protein Binding in the Axial Channel of Hsp104

2008· article· en· W2066064330 on OpenAlexaff
Ronnie Lum, Monika Niggemann, John R. Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeptideBiophysicsChemistryBinding siteThreading (protein sequence)Plasma protein bindingAllosteric regulationBiochemistryATPaseProteolysisAAA proteinsProtein foldingProtein structureBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AAA+ molecular chaperone Hsp104 mediates the extraction of proteins from aggregates by unfolding and threading them through its axial channel in an ATP-driven process. An Hsp104-binding peptide selected from solid phase arrays enhanced the refolding of a firefly luciferase-peptide fusion protein. Analysis of peptide binding using tryptophan fluorescence revealed two distinct binding sites, one in each AAA+ module of Hsp104. As a further indication of the relevance of peptide binding to the Hsp104 mechanism, we found that it competes with the binding of a model unfolded protein, reduced carboxymethylated alpha-lactalbumin. Inactivation of the pore loops in either AAA+ module prevented stable peptide and protein binding. However, when the loop in the first AAA+ was inactivated, stimulation of ATPase turnover in the second AAA+ module of this mutant was abolished. Drawing on these data, we propose a detailed mechanistic model of protein unfolding by Hsp104 in which an initial unstable interaction involving the loop in the first AAA+ module simultaneously promotes penetration of the substrate into the second axial channel binding site and activates ATP turnover in the second AAA+ module.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations84
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207