Brain fatty acid binding protein exhibits non-preferential and mutation-resistant binding towards fatty acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Members of the fatty acid binding protein (FABP) family function as intracellular transporters of long chain fatty acids and other hydrophobic molecules to different cellular compartments. Brain fatty acid binding protein (FABP7) exhibits ligand-directed differences in cellular transport behavior. For example, when FABP7 binds to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the complex relocates to the nucleus and influences transcriptional activity, whereas FABP7 bound with monosaturated fatty acids remain in the cytosol. We used a variety of biophysical techniques to enhance understanding of ligand-directed transport. Specifically, we examine how FABP7 binds to fatty acids, including saturated stearic acid (SA), monounsaturated oleic acid (OA), and polyunsaturated DHA. We find that at 37°C FABP7 has near equivalent binding affinities for the fatty acids, while at lower temperatures, FABP7 exhibits a preference for the unsaturated fatty acids. Therefore, nuclear localization of the FABP7-DHA complex cannot be explained by binding preferences. Using NMR spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulations, we observe that DHA uniquely affects the portal region of FABP7, which could enhance the complex’s nuclear localization. Mutations to purported critical binding residues (R126L and Y128F) have little effect on fatty acid binding, with molecular dynamics simulations revealing that the bound fatty acid can adopt binding poses that can accommodate the mutations. Significance This work studies FABP7 at physiological temperature and shows that nuclear localization of FABP7 cannot be initiated by tighter ligand interactions. Through biophysical experiments and simulations, we show ligand-dependent conformational changes, instead of binding affinities, are associated with certain biological outcomes. Extensive simulations reveal redundancy in available ligand binding conformations, which permits mutant-resistant binding. This suggests that these mutations do not affect ligand binding affinities, but changes in protein conformation and dynamics may result in disease associated cellular outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".