The hydrophobic region of the <i>Leishmania</i> peroxin 14: requirements for association with a glycosome mimetic membrane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein import into the Leishmania glycosome requires docking of the cargo-loaded peroxin 5 (PEX5) receptor to the peroxin 14 (PEX14) bound to the glycosome surface. To examine the LdPEX14–membrane interaction, we purified L. donovani promastigote glycosomes and determined the phospholipid and fatty acid composition. These membranes contained predominately phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylcholine, and phosphatidylglycerol (PG) modified primarily with C18 and C22 unsaturated fatty acid. Using large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) with a lipid composition mimicking the glycosomal membrane in combination with sucrose density centrifugation and fluorescence-activated cell sorting technique, we established that the LdPEX14 membrane-binding activity was dependent on a predicted transmembrane helix found within residues 149–179. Monolayer experiments showed that the incorporation of PG and phospholipids with unsaturated fatty acids, which increase membrane fluidity and favor a liquid expanded phase, facilitated the penetration of LdPEX14 into biological membranes. Moreover, we demonstrated that the binding of LdPEX5 receptor or LdPEX5–PTS1 receptor–cargo complex was contingent on the presence of LdPEX14 at the surface of LUVs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".