A Roadmap of Responses to Asymmetry Stress in Lipid Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The selective insertion of membrane-impermeant amphiphiles such as detergents, (lipo)peptides, drugs, etc. into the cis leaflet of a membrane causes an imbalance between the intrinsic areas of the cis and trans leaflet, referred to as asymmetry stress or differential stress. The literature provides individual mechanisms of how membranes respond to such stress, which are relevant to membrane remodeling processes and leakage phenomena. By studying vesicle budding, membrane leakage, and isothermal titration calorimetry of liposomes interacting with digitonin, alkyl maltosides, miltefosine, and octyl glucoside, we developed a roadmap linking the stress-response mechanisms to each other. Initially, lateral compression or stretching of the leaflets accommodates a minor asymmetry stress. Then, either molecules flip to the trans leaflet or the membrane bends to form buds. Fast flip leads to the classic three-stage model. Budding proceeds up to its limit at 20–40% of the lipid. Beyond, insertion of further detergent is opposed by the pressure in the overpopulated leaflet. This “staying out” state can persist over hours or days and up to high detergent concentrations before detergent micelles induce “micellar solubilization”. Alternatively, the stress can be reduced by a transient failure of the membrane, allowing for “cracking in” of molecules, transferring them to the trans side.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".