Protein Adsorption on Solid Surfaces: Data Mining, Database, Molecular Surface-Derived Properties, and Semiempirical Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein adsorption on solid surfaces is a process relevant to biological, medical, industrial, and environmental applications. Despite this wide interest and advancement in measurement techniques, the complexity of protein adsorption has frustrated its accurate prediction. To address this challenge, here, data regarding protein adsorption reported in the last four decades was collected, checked for completeness and correctness, organized, and archived in an upgraded, freely accessible Biomolecular Adsorption Database, which is equivalent to a large-scale, ad hoc, crowd-sourced multifactorial experiment. The shape and physicochemical properties of the proteins present in the database were quantified on their molecular surfaces using an in-house program (ProMS) operating as an add-on to the PyMol software. Machine learning-based analysis indicated that protein adsorption on hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces is modulated by different sets of operational, structural, and molecular surface-based physicochemical parameters. Separately, the adsorption data regarding four "benchmark" proteins, i.e., lysozyme, albumin, IgG, and fibrinogen, was processed by piecewise linear regression with the protein monolayer acting as breakpoint, using the linearization of the Langmuir isotherm formalism, resulting in semiempirical relationships predicting protein adsorption. These relationships, derived separately for hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces, described well the protein concentration on the surface as a function of the protein concentration in solution, adsorbing surface contact angle, ionic strength, pH, and temperature of the carrying fluid, and the difference between pH and the isoelectric point of the protein. When applying the semiempirical relationships derived for benchmark proteins to two other "test" proteins with known PDB structure, i.e., β-lactoglobulin and α-lactalbumin, the errors of this extrapolation were found to be in a linear relationship with the dissimilarity between the benchmark and the test proteins. The work presented here can be used for the estimation of operational parameters modulating protein adsorption for various applications such as diagnostic devices, pharmaceuticals, biomaterials, or the food industry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".