Effect of Polypeptide Sequence on Polypeptide Self-Assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study represents a unique example where the self-assembly of five amphiphilic polypeptides was monitored as a function of their hydrophilic-to-lipophilic balance (HLB). The HLB was tuned by preparing a series of polypeptides with aspartic acid (Asp) and phenylalanine (Phe) according to the sequence (Asp(x)Phe(y)) where x and y vary from 1 to 3. The self-assembly of the (Asp(x)Phe(y))(n) polypeptides with M(w) values ranging from 8 to 12 K was studied in solution by fluorescence quenching and nonradiative energy transfer (NRET) fluorescence experiments. Dynamic (DLS) and static (SLS) light scattering studies were used to complement the results obtained. The fluorescence quenching experiments conducted with the chromophore pyrene used as a free probe, physically bound to the polypeptides via hydrophobic interactions, demonstrated that the chromophore was less exposed to the solution for the sequences having a higher hydrophobic character. Protective quenching was also observed for those polypeptides randomly labeled with pyrene where the phenylalanine content was high, whereas pyrene was found to be fully exposed to the quencher for the polypeptides having more hydrophilic sequences. NRET used to probe interpolymeric association was not observed between a naphthalene and a pyrene labeled polypeptide for the polypeptide sequences which were richer in aspartic acid, whereas energy transfer took place with the more hydrophobic polypeptides. This observation led to the conclusion that those sequences with a higher content of aspartic acid essentially generate unimolecular polymeric micelles, whereas those with a higher content of phenylalanine generate polymeric aggregates which offer protection from the solvent to their hydrophobic cargo. The presence of these polymeric aggregates was also confirmed by DLS and SLS studies which suggest that species 100-200 nm in diameter are present in solution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".