N-Capping Motifs Promote Interaction of Amphipathic Helical Peptides with Hydrophobic Surfaces and Drastically Alter Hydrophobicity Values of Individual Amino Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capping rules, which govern interactions of helical peptides with hydrophobic surfaces, were never established before due to lack of methods for the direct measurement of polypeptide structure on the interphase boundary. We employed proteomic techniques and peptide retention modeling in reversed-phase chromatography to generate a data set sufficient for amino acid population analysis at helix ends. We found that interactions of amphipathic helical peptides with a hydrophobic C18 phase are induced by a unique motif featuring hydrophobic residues in the N1 and N2 positions adjacent to the N-cap (Asn, Asp, Ser, Thr, Gly), followed by Glu, Gln, or Asp in position N3 to complete a capping box. A favorable N-capping arrangement prior to amphipathic helix may result in the highest hydrophobicity (retention on C18 columns) of Asp/Asn (or Glu/Gln) peptide analogues among all naturally occurring amino acids when placed in N-cap or N3 position, respectively. These results contradict all previously reported hydrophobicity scales and provide new insights into our understanding of the phenomenon of hydrophobic interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".