Single‐Molecule Force Spectroscopy Trajectories of a Single Protein and Its Polyproteins Are Equivalent: A Direct Experimental Validation Based on A Small Protein NuG2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Single‐molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) has become a powerful tool in investigating the mechanical unfolding/folding of proteins at the single‐molecule level. Polyproteins made of tandem identical repeats have been widely used in atomic force microscopy (AFM)‐based SMFS studies, where polyproteins not only serve as fingerprints to identify single‐molecule stretching events, but may also improve statistics of data collection. However, the inherent assumption of such experiments is that all the domains in the polyprotein are equivalent and one SMFS trajectory of stretching a polyprotein made of n domains is equivalent to n trajectories of stretching a single domain. Such an assumption has not been validated experimentally. Using a small protein NuG2 and its polyprotein (NuG2) 4 as model systems, here we use optical trapping (OT) to directly validate this assumption. Our results show that OT experiments on NuG2 and (NuG2) 4 lead to identical parameters describing the unfolding and folding kinetics of NuG2, demonstrating that indeed stretching a polyprotein of NuG2 is equivalent to stretching single NuG2 in force spectroscopy experiments and thus validating the use of polyproteins in SMFS experiments.
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 | 0.000 |
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".