The oligodeoxynucleotide sequences corresponding to never-expressed peptide motifs are mainly located in the non-coding strand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We study the usage of specific peptide platforms in protein composition. Using the pentapeptide as a unit of length, we find that in the universal proteome many pentapeptides are heavily repeated (even thousands of times), whereas some are quite rare, and a small number do not appear at all. To understand the physico-chemical-biological basis underlying peptide usage at the proteomic level, in this study we analyse the energetic costs for the synthesis of rare and never-expressed versus frequent pentapeptides. In addition, we explore residue bulkiness, hydrophobicity, and codon number as factors able to modulate specific peptide frequencies. Then, the possible influence of amino acid composition is investigated in zero- and high-frequency pentapeptide sets by analysing the frequencies of the corresponding inverse-sequence pentapeptides. As a final step, we analyse the pentadecamer oligodeoxynucleotide sequences corresponding to the never-expressed pentapeptides. RESULTS: We find that only DNA context-dependent constraints (such as oligodeoxynucleotide sequence location in the minus strand, introns, pseudogenes, frameshifts, etc.) provide a coherent mechanistic platform to explain the occurrence of never-expressed versus frequent pentapeptides in the protein world. CONCLUSIONS: This study is of importance in cell biology. Indeed, the rarity (or lack of expression) of specific 5-mer peptide modules implies the rarity (or lack of expression) of the corresponding n-mer peptide sequences (with n < 5), so possibly modulating protein compositional trends. Moreover the data might further our understanding of the role exerted by rare pentapeptide modules as critical biological effectors in protein-protein interactions.
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) | 0.002 | 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".