Thermodynamic characterization of two homologous protein complexes: Associations of the semaphorin receptor plexin‐B1 RhoGTPase binding domain with Rnd1 and active Rac1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plexin receptors function in response to semaphorin guidance cues in a variety of developmental processes involving cell motility. Interactions with Rho, as well as Ras family small GTPases are critical events in the cell signaling mechanism. We have recently determined the structure of a cytoplasmic domain (RBD) of plexin-B1 and mapped its binding interface with several Rho-GTPases, Rac1, Rnd1, and RhoD. All three GTPases associate with a similar region of this plexin domain, but show different functional behavior in cells. To understand whether thermodynamic properties of the GTPase-RBD interaction contribute to such different behavior, we have examined the interaction at different temperatures, buffer, and pH conditions. Although the binding affinity of both Rnd1 and Rac1 with the plexin-B1 RBD is similar, the detailed thermodynamic properties of the interactions are considerably different. These data suggest that on Rac1 binding to the plexin-B1 RBD, the proteins become more rigid in the complex. By contrast, Rnd1 binding is consistent with unchanged or slightly increased flexibility in one or both proteins. Both GTPases show an appreciable reduction in affinity for the dimeric plexin-B1 RBD indicating that GTPase binding is not cooperative with dimer formation, but that a partial steric hindrance destabilizes the dimer. However, a reduced affinity binding mode to a disulphide stabilized model for the dimeric RBD is also possible. Consistent with cellular studies, the interaction thermodynamics imply that further levels of regulation involving additional binding partners and/or regions outside of the RhoGTPase binding domain are required for receptor activation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".