Structural and Dynamic Independence of Isopeptide-linked RanGAP1 and SUMO-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although sumoylation regulates a diverse and growing number of recognized biological processes, the molecular mechanisms by which the covalent attachment of the ubiquitin-like protein SUMO can alter the properties of a target protein remain to be established. To address this question, we have used NMR spectroscopy to characterize the complex of mature SUMO-1 with the C-terminal domain of human RanGAP1. Based on amide chemical shift and 15N relaxation measurements, we show that the C terminus of SUMO-1 and the loop containing the consensus sumoylation site in RanGAP1 are both conformationally flexible. Furthermore, the overall structure and backbone dynamics of each protein remain unchanged upon the covalent linkage of Lys524 in RanGAP1 to the C-terminal Gly97 of SUMO-1. Therefore, SUMO-1 and RanGAP1 behave as "beads-on-a-string," connected by a flexible isopeptide tether. Accordingly, the sumoylation-dependent interaction of RanGAP1 with the nucleoporin RanBP2 may arise through the bipartite recognition of both RanGAP1 and SUMO-1 rather than through a new binding surface induced in either individual protein upon their covalent linkage. We hypothesize that this conformational flexibility may be a general feature contributing to the recognition of ubiquitin-like modified proteins by their downstream effector machineries.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".