Comparison of Staphopain A (ScpA) and B (SspB) precursor activation mechanisms reveals unique secretion kinetics of proSspB (Staphopain B), and a different interaction with its cognate Staphostatin, SspC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scpAB and sspABC operons of Staphylococcus aureus encode Staphopain cysteine proteases ScpA and SspB, and their respective Staphostatins ScpB and SspC, which are thought to protect against premature activation of Staphopain precursors during protein export. However, we found that the proSspB precursor was secreted and activated without detriment to S. aureus in the absence of SspC function. Our data indicate that this is feasible due to a restricted substrate specificity of mature SspB, a stable precursor structure and slow secretion kinetics. In contrast, mature ScpA had a broad substrate specificity, such that it was prone to autolytic degradation, but also was uniquely able to degrade elastin fibres. Modelling of proScpA relative to the proSspB structure identified several differences, which appear to optimize proScpA for autocatalytic activation, whereas proSspB is optimized for stability, and cannot initiate autocatalytic activation. Consequently, recombinant proSspB remained stable and unprocessed when retained in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli, whereas proScpA initiated rapid autocatalytic activation, leading to capture of an activation intermediate by ScpB. We conclude that the status of sspBC in S. aureus, as paralogues of the ancestral scpAB genes, facilitated a different activation mechanism, a stable proSspB isoform and modified Staphostatin function.
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".