The Functional Differences between the GroEL Chaperonin of Escherichia coli and the HtpB Chaperonin of Legionella pneumophila Can Be Mapped to Specific Amino Acid Residues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group I chaperonins are a highly conserved family of essential proteins that self-assemble into molecular nanoboxes that mediate the folding of cytoplasmic proteins in bacteria and organelles. GroEL, the chaperonin of Escherichia coli, is the archetype of the family. Protein folding-independent functions have been described for numerous chaperonins, including HtpB, the chaperonin of the bacterial pathogen Legionella pneumophila. Several protein folding-independent functions attributed to HtpB are not shared by GroEL, suggesting that differences in the amino acid (aa) sequence between these two proteins could correlate with functional differences. GroEL and HtpB differ in 137 scattered aa positions. Using the Evolutionary Trace (ET) bioinformatics method, site-directed mutagenesis, and a functional reporter test based upon a yeast-two-hybrid interaction with the eukaryotic protein ECM29, it was determined that out of those 137 aa, ten (M68, M212, S236, K298, N507 and the cluster AEHKD in positions 471-475) were involved in the interaction of HtpB with ECM29. GroEL was completely unable to interact with ECM29, but when GroEL was modified at those 10 aa positions, to display the HtpB aa, it acquired a weak ability to interact with ECM29. This constitutes proof of concept that the unique functional abilities of HtpB can be mapped to specific aa positions.
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) | 0.001 | 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".