Exploring Options for Proximity-Dependent Biotinylation Experiments: Comparative Analysis of Labeling Enzymes and Affinity Purification Resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximity-dependent biotinylation (PDB) techniques provide information about the molecular neighborhood of a protein of interest, yielding insights into its function and localization. Here, we assessed how different labeling enzymes and streptavidin resins influence PDB results. We compared the high-confidence interactors of the DNA/RNA-binding protein transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 kDa (TDP-43) identified using either miniTurbo (biotin ligase) or APEX2 (peroxidase) enzymes. We also evaluated two commercial affinity resins for purification of biotinylated proteins: conventional streptavidin sepharose versus a new trypsin-resistant streptavidin conjugated to magnetic resin, which significantly reduces the level of contamination by streptavidin peptides following on-bead trypsin digestion. Downstream analyses involved liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry in data-dependent acquisition mode, database searching, and statistical analysis of high-confidence interactors using SAINTexpress. The APEX2-TDP-43 experiment identified more interactors than miniTurbo-TDP-43, although miniTurbo provided greater overlap with previously documented TDP-43 interactors. Purifications on sepharose resin yielded more interactors than magnetic resin in small-scale experiments using a range of magnetic resin volumes. We suggest that resin-specific background protein binding profiles and different lysate-to-resin ratios cumulatively affect the distributions of prey protein abundance in experimental and control samples, which impact statistical confidence scores. Overall, we highlight key experimental variables to consider for the empirical optimization of PDB experiments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".