HDX-MS and MD Simulations Provide Evidence for Stabilization of the IgG1—FcγRIa (CD64a) Immune Complex Through Intermolecular Glycoprotein Bonds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous reports present different models for the stabilization of the Fc—FcγRI immune complex. Although accord exists on the importance of L235 in IgG1 and some hydrophobic contacts for complex stabilization, discord exists regarding the existence of stabilizing glycoprotein contacts between glycans of IgG1 and a conserved FG-loop (171MGKHRY176) of FcγRIa. Complexes formed from the FcγRIa receptor and IgG1s containing biantennary glycans with N-acetylglucosamine, galactose, and α2,6-N-acetylneuraminic terminations were measured by hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS), classified for dissimilarity with Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc procedures, and modeled with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. For each glycoform of the IgG1—FcγRIa complex peptic peptides of Fab, Fc and FcγRIa report distinct H/D exchange rates. MD simulations corroborate the differences in the peptide deuterium content through calculation of the percent of time that transient glycan-peptide bonds exist. These results indicate that stability of IgG1—FcγRIa complexes correlate with the presence of intermolecular glycoprotein interactions between the IgG1 glycans and the 173KHR175 motif within the FG-loop of FcγRIa. The results also indicate that intramolecular glycan-protein bonds stabilize the Fc region in isolated and complexed IgG1. Moreover, HDX-MS data evince that the Fab domain has glycan-protein binding contacts within the IgG1—FcγRI complex.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".