Reengineering natural design by rational design and in vivo library selection: the HLH subdomain in bHLHZ proteins is a unique requirement for DNA-binding function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the role of the HLH subdomain in bHLHZ proteins, we designed sets of minimalist proteins based on bHLHZ protein Max, bHLH/PAS protein Arnt and bZIP protein C/EBP. In the first, the Max bHLH and C/EBP leucine zipper were fused such that the leucine heptad repeats were not in register; therefore, the protein dimerization interface was disrupted. Max1bHLH-C/EBP showed little ability to activate transcription from the E-box (5'-CACGTG) in the yeast one-hybrid assay, and no E-box binding by quantitative fluorescence anisotropy. Max1bHLH-C/EBP's activity was significantly improved after library selection (three amino acids randomized between HLH and leucine zipper), despite the Max bHLH and C/EBP zipper still being out of register: a representative mutant gave a high nanomolar K(d) value for E-box binding. Thus, selection proved to be a powerful tool for salvaging the flawed Max1bHLH-C/EBP, although the out-of-register mutants still did not achieve the strong DNA-binding affinities displayed by their in-register counterparts. ArntbHLH-C/EBP hybrids further demonstrated the importance of maintaining register, as out-of-register mutants showed no E-box-responsive activity, whereas the in-register hybrid showed moderate activity. In another design, we eliminated the HLH altogether and fused the Max basic region to the C/EBP zipper to generate bZIP-like hybrids. Despite numerous designs and selections, these hybrids possessed no E-box-responsive activity. Finally, we tested the importance of the loop sequence in MaxbHLHZ by fluorescence and circular dichroism. In one mutant, the loop was shortened by two residues; in the other, the Lys57:DNA-backbone interaction was abolished by mutation to Gly57. Both showed markedly decreased E-box-binding relative to MaxbHLHZ. Our results suggest that, in contrast to the more rigid bZIP, the HLH is capable of significant conformational adaptation to enable gene-regulatory function and is required for protein dimerization and positioning the basic region for DNA recognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".