Simulations of a protein fold switch reveal crowding-induced population shifts driven by disordered regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Macromolecular crowding effects on globular proteins, which usually adopt a single stable fold, have been widely studied. However, little is known about crowding effects on fold-switching proteins, which reversibly switch between distinct folds. Here we study the mutationally driven switch between the folds of GA and GB, the two 56-amino acid binding domains of protein G, using a structure-based dual-basin model. We show that, in the absence of crowders, the fold populations PA and PB can be controlled by the strengths of contacts in the two folds, κA and κB. A population balance, PA ≈ PB, is obtained for κB/κA = 0.92. The resulting model protein is subject to crowding at different packing fractions, ϕc. We find that crowding increases the GB population and reduces the GA population, reaching PB/PA ≈ 4 at ϕc = 0.44. We analyze the ϕc-dependence of the crowding-induced GA-to-GB switch using scaled particle theory, which provides a qualitative, but not quantitative, fit of our data, suggesting effects beyond a spherical description of the folds. We show that the terminal regions of the protein chain, which are intrinsically disordered only in GA, play a dominant role in the response of the fold switch to crowding effects.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".