Investigating the Influence of Membrane Composition on Protein–Glycolipid Binding Using Nanodiscs and Proxy Ligand Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes a versatile analytical approach, which combines the proxy ligand electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) assay and model membranes of defined composition, to quantify the influence of lipid bilayer composition on protein–glycolipid binding in vitro . To illustrate the implementation of the assay (experimental design and data analysis), affinities of the monosialoganglioside ligand GM1, incorporated into nanodiscs (NDs), for cholera toxin B subunit homopentamer (CTB 5 ) were measured. A series of NDs containing GM1 and cholesterol were prepared using three different phospholipids (1,2-dimyristoyl- sn -glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC), 1,2-dipalmitoyl- sn -glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC), and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl- sn -glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC)), and the average GM1 and cholesterol content of each ND were determined. The intrinsic affinities of GM1-containing NDs prepared with the three phospholipids are found to be similar in magnitude, indicating that small differences in the fatty acid chain length and the number of unsaturated bonds do not significantly affect the CTB 5 –GM1 interaction. Moreover, the measured affinities are similar to the value measured for GM1 pentasaccharide, indicating that neither the ceramide moiety nor the surface of the phospholipid membrane plays a significant role in CTB 5 binding. The intrinsic (per binding site) affinity of the CTB 5 –GM1 interaction was found to decrease with increasing GM1 content of the ND, consistent with the occurrence of GM1 clustering in the membrane, which sterically hinders binding to CTB 5 . Notably, the addition of cholesterol to GM1-containing NDs did not have a significant effect on the strength of the CTB 5 –GM1 interaction. This result, which is at odds with the findings of a previous study of CTB 5 binding to GM1 in vesicles, suggests that cholesterol does not “mask” GM1, at least not in NDs. These data, in addition to providing new insights into the influence of membrane composition on CTB 5 –GM1 binding, demonstrate the potential of the proxy ligand ESI-MS approach for comprehensive and quantitative studies of lectin interactions with glycolipids in native-like, membrane environments.
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 | 0.001 | 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".