Structural and functional analysis of parameters governing tankyrase-1 interaction with telomeric repeat-binding factor 1 and GDP-mannose 4,6-dehydratase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human tankyrase-1 (TNKS) is a member of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) superfamily of proteins that posttranslationally modify themselves and target proteins with ADP-ribose (termed PARylation). The TNKS ankyrin repeat domain mediates interactions with a growing number of structurally and functionally diverse binding partners, linking TNKS activity to multiple critical cell processes, including Wnt signaling, Golgi trafficking, and telomere maintenance. However, some binding partners can engage TNKS without being modified, suggesting that separate parameters influence TNKS interaction and PARylation. Here, we present an analysis of the sequence and structural features governing TNKS interactions with two model binding partners: the PARylated partner telomeric repeat-binding factor 1 (TRF1) and the non-PARylated partner GDP-mannose 4,6-dehydratase (GMD). Using a combination of TNKS-binding assays, PARP activity assays, and analytical ultracentrifugation sedimentation analysis, we found that both the specific sequence of a given TNKS-binding peptide motif and the quaternary structure of individual binding partners play important roles in TNKS interactions. We demonstrate that GMD forms stable 1:1 complexes with the TNKS ankyrin repeat domain; yet, consistent with results from previous studies, we were unable to detect GMD modification. We also report in vitro evidence that TNKS primarily directs PAR modification to glutamate/aspartate residues. Our results suggest that TNKS-binding partners possess unique sequence and structural features that control binding and PARylation. Ultimately, our findings highlight the binding partner:ankyrin repeat domain interface as a viable target for inhibition of TNKS activity.
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) | 0.003 | 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".