Structural design principles for specific ultra-high affinity interactions between colicins/pyocins and immunity proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions of the antibiotic proteins colicins/pyocins with immunity proteins is a seminal model system for studying protein-protein interactions and specificity. Yet, a precise and quantitative determination of which structural elements and residues determine their binding affinity and specificity is still lacking. Here, we used comparative structure-based energy calculations to map residues that substantially contribute to interactions across native and engineered complexes of colicins/pyocins and immunity proteins. We show that the immunity protein α1-α2 motif is a unique structurally-dissimilar element that restricts interaction specificity towards all colicins/pyocins, in both engineered and native complexes. This motif combines with a diverse and extensive array of electrostatic/polar interactions that enable the exquisite specificity that characterizes these interactions while achieving ultra-high affinity. Surprisingly, the divergence of these contributing colicin residues is reciprocal to residue conservation in immunity proteins. The structurally-dissimilar immunity protein α1-α2 motif is recognized by divergent colicins similarly, while the conserved immunity protein α3 helix interacts with diverse colicin residues. Electrostatics thus plays a key role in setting interaction specificity across all colicins and immunity proteins. Our analysis and resulting residue-level maps illuminate the molecular basis for these protein-protein interactions, with implications for drug development and rational engineering of these interfaces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".