Cellular crowding imposes global constraints on the chemistry and evolution of proteomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In living cells, functional protein-protein interactions compete with a much larger number of nonfunctional, or promiscuous, interactions. Several cellular properties contribute to avoiding unwanted protein interactions, including regulation of gene expression, cellular compartmentalization, and high specificity and affinity of functional interactions. Here we investigate whether other mechanisms exist that shape the sequence and structure of proteins to favor their correct assembly into functional protein complexes. To examine this question, we project evolutionary and cellular abundance information onto 397, 196, and 631 proteins of known 3D structure from Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Homo sapiens, respectively. On the basis of amino acid frequencies in interface patches versus the solvent-accessible protein surface, we define a propensity or "stickiness" scale for each of the 20 amino acids. We find that the propensity to interact in a nonspecific manner is inversely correlated with abundance. In other words, high abundance proteins have less sticky surfaces. We also find that stickiness constrains protein evolution, whereby residues in sticky surface patches are more conserved than those found in nonsticky patches. Finally, we find that the constraint imposed by stickiness on protein divergence is proportional to protein abundance, which provides mechanistic insights into the correlation between protein conservation and protein abundance. Overall, the avoidance of nonfunctional interactions significantly influences the physico-chemical and evolutionary properties of proteins. Remarkably, the effects observed are consistently larger in E. coli and S. cerevisiae than in H. sapiens, suggesting that promiscuous protein-protein interactions may be freer to accumulate in the human lineage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".