Large‐scale survey and database of high affinity ligands for peptide recognition modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many proteins involved in signal transduction contain peptide recognition modules (PRMs) that recognize short linear motifs (SLiMs) within their interaction partners. Here, we used large-scale peptide-phage display methods to derive optimal ligands for 163 unique PRMs representing 79 distinct structural families. We combined the new data with previous data that we collected for the large SH3, PDZ, and WW domain families to assemble a database containing 7,984 unique peptide ligands for 500 PRMs representing 82 structural families. For 74 PRMs, we acquired enough new data to map the specificity profiles in detail and derived position weight matrices and binding specificity logos based on multiple peptide ligands. These analyses showed that optimal peptide ligands resembled peptides observed in existing structures of PRM-ligand complexes, indicating that a large majority of the phage-derived peptides are likely to target natural peptide-binding sites and could thus act as inhibitors of natural protein-protein interactions. The complete dataset has been assembled in an online database (http://www.prm-db.org) that will enable many structural, functional, and biological studies of PRMs and SLiMs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".