Identification of an FHL1protein complex containing ACTN1, ACTN4, and PDLIM1 using affinity purifications and MS-based protein–protein interaction analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Four and a half LIM domains protein 1 (FHL1) is the most widely expressed member of the FHL family of proteins, consisting of four and a half highly conserved LIM domains. A multifunctional and integral role for FHL1 has been implicated in muscle development, structural maintenance, and signaling. To date, 27 FHL1 mutations have been identified that result in at least six different X-linked myopathies, with patients often presenting with cardiovascular complications. Since proteins assemble into dynamic complexes within the cell, FHL1 likely mediates its biological functions in conjunction with other proteins. Delineation of FHL1 interactions could provide insight into its regulatory functions. METHODS: We performed tandem affinity purification from human embryonic kidney 293 (HEK-293) cells to purify FHL1 and interacting proteins. To identify the potential interactors of FHL1 we performed a total of 9 different purifications from HEK-293 cells which included 3 experimental replicates for each biological condition: FHL1, tag control (DPYSL3), and negative control (empty vector). Purified samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Potential interactors were then verified by immunoprecipitation from mouse heart ventricles and interactions visualized in adult cardiomyocytes using 3D fluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: We identified a total of 310 different proteins from all 9 purifications and by applying stringent filtering criteria we eliminated all proteins found in any of the controls and only allowed those that were detected in two or more bait purification. We identified 34 high confidence potential binding partners of FHL1. We then showed that FHL1 exists as part of a complex that binds with PDLIM1, GSN and ACTN1.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".