Disordered nucleiome: Abundance of intrinsic disorder in the DNA‐ and RNA‐binding proteins in 1121 species from Eukaryota, Bacteria and Archaea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are abundant in various proteomes, where they play numerous important roles and complement biological activities of ordered proteins. Among functions assigned to IDPs are interactions with nucleic acids. However, often, such assignments are made based on the guilty-by-association principle. The validity of the extension of these correlations to all nucleic acid binding proteins has never been analyzed on a large scale across all domains of life. To fill this gap, we perform a comprehensive computational analysis of the abundance of intrinsic disorder and intrinsically disordered domains in nucleiomes (∼548 000 nucleic acid binding proteins) of 1121 species from Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryota. Nucleiome is a whole complement of proteins involved in interactions with nucleic acids. We show that relative to other proteins in the corresponding proteomes, the DNA-binding proteins have significantly increased disorder content and are significantly enriched in disordered domains in Eukaryotes but not in Archaea and Bacteria. The RNA-binding proteins are significantly enriched in the disordered domains in Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota, while the overall abundance of disorder in these proteins is significantly increased in Bacteria, Archaea, animals and fungi. The high abundance of disorder in nucleiomes supports the notion that the nucleic acid binding proteins often require intrinsic disorder for their functions and regulation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".