Surface charge of polyoxometalates modulates polymerization of the scrapie prion protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prions are composed solely of an alternatively folded isoform of the prion protein (PrP), designated PrP(Sc). N-terminally truncated PrP(Sc), denoted PrP 27-30, retains infectivity and polymerizes into rods with the ultrastructural and tinctorial properties of amyloid. We report here that some polyoxometalates (POMs) favor polymerization of PrP 27-30 into prion rods, whereas other POMs promote assembly of the protein into 2D crystals. Antibodies reacting with epitopes in denatured PrP 27-30 also bound to 2D crystals treated with 3 M urea. These same antibodies did not bind to either native PrP(Sc) or untreated 2D crystals. By using small, spherical POMs with Keggin-type structures, the central heteroatom was found to determine whether prion rods or 2D crystals were preferentially formed. An example of a Keggin-type POM with a phosphorous heteroatom is the phosphotungstate anion (PTA). Both PTA and a Keggin-type POM with a silicon heteratom have low-charge densities and favor formation of prion rods. In contrast, POMs with boron or hydrogen heteroatoms exhibiting higher negative charges encouraged 2D crystal formation. The 2D crystals of PrP 27-30 produced by selective precipitation with POMs were larger and more well ordered than those obtained by sucrose gradient centrifugation. Our findings argue that the negative charge of Keggin-type POMs determines the quaternary structure adopted by PrP 27-30. The mechanism by which POMs function in competing prion polymerization pathways--one favoring 2D crystals and the other, amyloid fibrils--remains to be established.
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".