MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169857304 · doi:10.1021/bi401457r

The Curvature Sensitivity of a Membrane-Binding Amphipathic Helix Can Be Modulated by the Charge on a Flanking Region

2014· article· en· W2169857304 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharon Shin Yin Chong, Svetla G. Taneva, Joseph Lee, Rosemary B. Cornell

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMembrane curvatureCurvatureMembraneChemistryBiophysicsVesicleHelix (gastropod)CrystallographyStatic electricityCharge (physics)AmphiphileBiochemistryBiologyPhysicsPolymerOrganic chemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membrane-induced amphipathic helices (m-AH) can act as membrane curvature sensors by binding preferentially to hydrophobic lipid packing defects enriched in curved surfaces. Reliance on hydrophobicity and membrane curvature for binding is enhanced when electrostatic interactions are weak. We probed the role of modifying membrane and protein charge on the curvature sensing of two m-AH-containing proteins, CTP:phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase (CCT) and α-synuclein (α-syn). The m-AH domains in both proteins are flanked by disordered tails with multiple phosphoserines (CCT) or acidic residues (α-syn), which we mutated to glutamate or serine to modify protein charge. Analysis of binding to vesicles of varying curvature showed that increasing the negative charge of the tail region decreased the binding strength and augmented the curvature dependence, especially for CCT. We attribute this to charge repulsion. Conversely, increasing the membrane negative charge dampened the curvature dependence. Our data suggest that discrimination of curved versus flat membranes with high negative charge could be modulated by phosphorylation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207