Evolution of domain–peptide interactions to coadapt specificity and affinity to functional diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolution of complexity in eukaryotic proteomes has arisen, in part, through emergence of modular independently folded domains mediating protein interactions via binding to short linear peptides in proteins. Over 30 years, structural properties and sequence preferences of these peptides have been extensively characterized. Less successful, however, were efforts to establish relationships between physicochemical properties and functions of domain-peptide interactions. To our knowledge, we have devised the first strategy to exhaustively explore the binding specificity of protein domain-peptide interactions. We applied the strategy to SH3 domains to determine the properties of their binding peptides starting from various experimental data. The strategy identified the majority (∼70%) of experimentally determined SH3 binding sites. We discovered mutual relationships among binding specificity, binding affinity, and structural properties and evolution of linear peptides. Remarkably, we found that these properties are also related to functional diversity, defined by depth of proteins within hierarchies of gene ontologies. Our results revealed that linear peptides evolved to coadapt specificity and affinity to functional diversity of domain-peptide interactions. Thus, domain-peptide interactions follow human-constructed gene ontologies, which suggest that our understanding of biological process hierarchies reflect the way chemical and thermodynamic properties of linear peptides and their interaction networks, in general, have evolved.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".