Role of osmolytes as chemical chaperones during the refolding of aminoacylase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The refolding and reactivation of aminoacylase is particularly difficult because of serious off-pathway aggregation. The effects of 4 osmolytes--dimethylsulphoxide, glycerol, proline, and sucrose--on the refolding and reactivation of guanidine-denatured aminoacylase were studied by measuring aggregation, enzyme activity, intrinsic fluorescence spectra, 1-anilino-8-naphthalenesulfonate (ANS) fluorescence spectra, and circular dichroism (CD) spectra. The results show that all the osmolytes not only inhibit aggregation but also recover the activity of aminoacylase during refolding in a concentration-dependent manner. In particularly, a 40% glycerol concentration and a 1.5 mol/L sucrose concentration almost completely suppressed the aminoacylase aggregation. The enzyme activity measurements revealed that the influence of glycerol is more significant than that of any other osmolyte. The intrinsic fluorescence results showed that glycerol, proline, and sucrose stabilized the aminoacylase conformation effectively, with glycerol being the most effective. All 4 kinds of osmolytes reduced the exposure of the hydrophobic surface, indicating that osmolytes facilitate the formation of protein hydrophobic collapse. The CD results indicate that glycerol and sucrose facilitate the return of aminoacylase to its native secondary structure. The results of this study suggest that the ability of the various osmolytes to facilitate the refolding and renaturation of aminoacylase is not the same. A survey of the results in the literature, as well as those presented here, suggests that although the protective effect of osmolytes on protein activity and structure is equal for different osmolytes, the ability of osmolytes to facilitate the refolding of various proteins differs from case to case. In all cases, glycerol was found to be the best stabilizer and a folding aid.
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) | 0.000 | 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".