Insights into the Association of FcγRII and TCR with Detergent-Resistant Membrane Domains: Isolation of the Domains in Detergent-Free Density Gradients Facilitates Membrane Fragment Reconstitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasma membrane rafts are routinely isolated as detergent-resistant membranes (DRMs) floating in detergent-free density gradients. Here we show that both the presence and exclusion of TX-100 during the density gradient fractionation have profound effects on the location of FcgammaRII and TCR in DRM fractions. The presence of TX-100 during fractionation promoted solubilization of non-cross-linked FcgammaRII when the receptor was insufficiently dissolved upon cell lysis. In the detergent-supplemented gradients, TX-100 micelles floated, further enhancing dissociation of FcgammaRII and TCR from DRMs and promoting a shift of the receptors toward higher-density fractions. Hence, fractionation of cell lysates over the detergent-containing gradients enables isolation of DRMs devoid of weakly associated proteins, like nonactivated FcgammaRII and TCR. On the other hand, in a detergent-free gradient, non-cross-linked FcgammaRII, fully soluble in 0.2% TX-100, was recovered in DRM fractions. Moreover, employment of the TX-100-free gradient for refractionation of intermediate-density fractions, derived from detergent-supplemented gradients and containing FcgammaRII and TCR, resulted in flotation of the receptors to buoyant fractions. An analysis of the TX-100 concentration revealed that after fractionation of 0.2% TX-100 cell lysates in the absence of detergent, the level of TX-100 in DRM fractions was reduced to 0.01%, below the critical micelle concentration. Therefore, fractionation of detergent cell lysates over detergent-free gradients can mimic conditions for a membrane reconstitution, evoking association of a distinct subset of membrane proteins, including FcgammaRII and TCR, with DRMs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".