Phosphorylation‐linked complex profiling identifies assemblies required for Hippo signal integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While several computational methods have been developed to predict the functional relevance of phosphorylation sites, experimental analysis of the interdependency between protein phosphorylation and Protein-Protein Interactions (PPIs) remains challenging. Here, we describe an experimental strategy to establish interdependencies between protein phosphorylation and complex formation. This strategy is based on three main steps: (i) systematically charting the phosphorylation landscape of a target protein; (ii) assigning distinct proteoforms of the target protein to different protein complexes by native complex separation (AP-BNPAGE) and protein correlation profiling; and (iii) analyzing proteoforms and complexes in cells lacking regulators of the target protein. We applied this strategy to YAP1, a transcriptional co-activator for the control of organ size and tissue homeostasis that is highly phosphorylated and among the most connected proteins in human cells. We identified multiple YAP1 phosphosites associated with distinct complexes and inferred how both are controlled by Hippo pathway members. We detected a PTPN14/LATS1/YAP1 complex and suggest a model how PTPN14 inhibits YAP1 via augmenting WW domain-dependent complex formation and phosphorylation by LATS1/2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".