Emerging Diversity in Lipid–Protein Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Membrane lipids interact with proteins in a variety of ways, ranging from providing a stable membrane environment for proteins to being embedded in to detailed roles in complicated and well-regulated protein functions. Experimental and computational advances are converging in a rapidly expanding research area of lipid-protein interactions. Experimentally, the database of high-resolution membrane protein structures is growing, as are capabilities to identify the complex lipid composition of different membranes, to probe the challenging time and length scales of lipid-protein interactions, and to link lipid-protein interactions to protein function in a variety of proteins. Computationally, more accurate membrane models and more powerful computers now enable a detailed look at lipid-protein interactions and increasing overlap with experimental observations for validation and joint interpretation of simulation and experiment. Here we review papers that use computational approaches to study detailed lipid-protein interactions, together with brief experimental and physiological contexts, aiming at comprehensive coverage of simulation papers in the last five years. Overall, a complex picture of lipid-protein interactions emerges, through a range of mechanisms including modulation of the physical properties of the lipid environment, detailed chemical interactions between lipids and proteins, and key functional roles of very specific lipids binding to well-defined binding sites on proteins. Computationally, despite important limitations, molecular dynamics simulations with current computer power and theoretical models are now in an excellent position to answer detailed questions about lipid-protein interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".