Structural comparison of substrate entry gate for rhomboid intramembrane peptidasesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in a Special Issue entitled CSBMCB 53rd Annual Meeting — Membrane Proteins in Health and Disease, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhomboids are intramembrane serine peptidases conserved in all kingdoms of life. Their general role is to cleave integral membrane proteins to release signalling molecules. These signals, when disrupted, can contribute to various diseases. Crystal structures of H. influenzae (hiGlpG) and E. coli GlpG (ecGlpG) rhomboids have revealed a structure with six transmembrane helices and a Ser-His catalytic dyad buried within the membrane. One emerging issue was the identification of the mobile element in the protein that allows substrate docking. It has been proposed that the substrate entry gate is composed of helix 5 and loop 5. The present review studies the structures of these two orthologs. In ecGlpG structures, different conformations of loop 5 and helix 5 are observed. Open and closed conformations of ecGlpG structures are compared with each other and with hiGlpG, surveying differences in hydrophobic interactions within loop 5 and helix 5. Furthermore, a comparison of the ecGlpG and hiGlpG structures reveals differences in loop 4. Overall, less variation is observed in loop 4, suggesting this region acts as an anchor for the substrate gate. Functional and regulatory implications of these variations are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".