Gα and regulator of G‐protein signaling (RGS) protein pairs maintain functional compatibility and conserved interaction interfaces throughout evolution despite frequent loss of RGS proteins in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signaling pathways regulated by heterotrimeric G-proteins exist in all eukaryotes. The regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins are key interactors and critical modulators of the Gα protein of the heterotrimer. However, while G-proteins are widespread in plants, RGS proteins have been reported to be missing from the entire monocot lineage, with two exceptions. A single amino acid substitution-based adaptive coevolution of the Gα:RGS proteins was proposed to enable the loss of RGS in monocots. We used a combination of evolutionary and biochemical analyses and homology modeling of the Gα and RGS proteins to address their expansion and its potential effects on the G-protein cycle in plants. Our results show that RGS proteins are widely distributed in the monocot lineage, despite their frequent loss. There is no support for the adaptive coevolution of the Gα:RGS protein pair based on single amino acid substitutions. RGS proteins interact with, and affect the activity of, Gα proteins from species with or without endogenous RGS. This cross-functional compatibility expands between the metazoan and plant kingdoms, illustrating striking conservation of their interaction interface. We propose that additional proteins or alternative mechanisms may exist which compensate for the loss of RGS in certain plant species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".