Identification of unknown protein complex members by radiolocalization and analysis of low‐abundance complexes resolved using native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of unknown binding partners of a protein of interest can be a difficult process. Current strategies to determine protein binding partners result in a high amount of false-positives, requiring use of several different methods to confirm the accuracy of the apparent association. We have developed and utilized a method that is reliable and easily substantiated. Complexes are isolated from cell extract after exposure to the radiolabeled protein of interest, followed by resolution on a native polyacrylamide gel. Native conformations are preserved, allowing the complex members to maintain associations. By radiolabeling the protein of interest, the complex can be easily identified at detection levels below the threshold of Serva Blue, Coomassie, and silver stains. The visualized radioactive band is analyzed by MS to identify binding partners, which can be subsequently verified by antibody shift and immunoprecipitation of the complex. By using this method we have successfully identified binding partners of two proteins that reside in different locations of a cellular organelle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".