Mapping Biochemical Networks With Protein-Fragment Complementation Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular biochemical machineries, what we call pathways, consist of dynamically assembling and disassembling macromolecular complexes. Although our models for the organization of biochemical machines are derived largely from in vitro experiments, do they reflect their organization in intact, living cells? We have developed a general experimental strategy that addresses this question by allowing the quantitative probing of molecular interactions in intact, living cells. The experimental strategy is based on protein-fragment complementation assays (PCA), a method whereby protein interactions are coupled to refolding of enzymes from cognate fragments where reconstitution of enzyme activity acts as the detector of a protein interaction. A biochemical machine or pathway is defined by grouping interacting proteins into those that are perturbed in the same way by common factors (hormones, metabolites, enzyme inhibitors, and so on). In this chapter we review some of the essential principles of PCA and provide details and protocols for applications of PCA, particularly in mammalian cells, based on three PCA reporters, dihydrofolate reductase, green fluorescent protein, and beta-lactamase.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".