Cellular Strategies for Regulating Functional and Nonfunctional Protein Aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that aggregation-prone proteins are both harmful and functional for a cell. How do cellular systems balance the detrimental and beneficial effect of protein aggregation? We reveal that aggregation-prone proteins are subject to differential transcriptional, translational, and degradation control compared to nonaggregation-prone proteins, which leads to their decreased synthesis, low abundance, and high turnover. Genetic modulators that enhance the aggregation phenotype are enriched in genes that influence expression homeostasis. Moreover, genes encoding aggregation-prone proteins are more likely to be harmful when overexpressed. The trends are evolutionarily conserved and suggest a strategy whereby cellular mechanisms specifically modulate the availability of aggregation-prone proteins to (1) keep concentrations below the critical ones required for aggregation and (2) shift the equilibrium between the monomeric and oligomeric/aggregate form, as explained by Le Chatelier's principle. This strategy may prevent formation of undesirable aggregates and keep functional assemblies/aggregates under control.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".