Crystal Structure of the Biglycan Dimer and Evidence That Dimerization Is Essential for Folding and Stability of Class I Small Leucine-rich Repeat Proteoglycans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biglycan and decorin are two closely related proteoglycans whose protein cores contain leucine-rich repeats flanked by disulfides. We have previously shown that decorin is dimeric both in solution and in crystal structures. In this study we determined whether biglycan dimerizes and investigated the role of dimerization in the folding and stability of these proteoglycans. We used light scattering to show that biglycan is dimeric in solution and solved the crystal structure of the glycoprotein core of biglycan at 3.40-angstroms resolution. This structure reveals that biglycan dimerizes in the same way as decorin, i.e. by apposition of the concave inner surfaces of the leucine-rich repeat domains. We demonstrate that low concentrations of guanidinium chloride denature biglycan and decorin but that the denaturation is completely reversible following removal of the guanidinium chloride, as assessed by circular dichroism spectroscopy. Furthermore, the rate of refolding is dependent on protein concentration, demonstrating that it is not a unimolecular process. Upon heating, decorin shows a single structural transition at a T(m) of 45-46 degrees C but refolds completely upon cooling to 25 degrees C. This property of decorin enabled us to show both by calorimetry and light scattering that dimer to monomer transition coincided with unfolding and monomer to dimer transition coincided with refolding; thus these processes are inextricably linked. We further conclude that folded monomeric biglycan or decorin cannot exist in solution. This implies novel interrelated functions for the parallel beta sheet faces of these leucine-rich repeat proteoglycans, including dimerization and stabilization of protein folding.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".