Protein translocation without specific quality control in a computational model of the Tat system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The twin-arginine translocation (Tat) system transports folded proteins of various sizes across both bacterial and plant thylakoid membranes. The membrane-associated TatA protein is an essential component of the Tat translocon, and a broad distribution of different sized TatA-clusters is observed in bacterial membranes. We assume that the size dynamics of TatA clusters are affected by substrate binding, unbinding, and translocation to associated TatBC clusters, where clusters with bound translocation substrates favour growth and those without associated substrates favour shrinkage. With a stochastic model of substrate binding and cluster dynamics, we numerically determine the TatA cluster size distribution. We include a proportion of targeted but non-translocatable (NT) substrates, with the simplifying hypothesis that the substrate translocatability does not directly affect cluster dynamical rate constants or substrate binding or unbinding rates. This amounts to a translocation model without specific quality control. Nevertheless, NT substrates will remain associated with TatA clusters until unbound and so will affect cluster sizes and translocation rates. We find that the number of larger TatA clusters depends on the NT fraction f. The translocation rate can be optimized by tuning the rate of spontaneous substrate unbinding, [Formula: see text]. We present an analytically solvable three-state model of substrate translocation without cluster size dynamics that follows our computed translocation rates, and that is consistent with in vitro Tat-translocation data in the presence of NT substrates.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".