A protein-fragment complementation assay to quantify synthetic protein scaffold efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scaffolds are powerful tools in synthetic biology used for various applications, from increasing yield to optimizing signalling specificity. Protein scaffolds can be built by fusing peptide binding domains (PBD) and attaching the peptide they bind to the enzymes, inducing spatial proximity. Only a few PBD-peptide combinations have been tested in this context, and no combination produced a high yield in yeast, an important chassis in biotechnology. Therefore, there is a need for more exploration of PBD-peptide pairs to be used in this model. Scaffold characterization is challenging because it is often dependent on a model pathway with an output that is difficult to measure quantitatively. Here, we use a protein-fragment complementation assay (PCA) to study scaffolding efficiency in yeast, which allows to couple scaffolding efficiency with growth rate. First, we characterize the strength of PBD-peptide interactions (PPI) and the binding availability of the PBDs and peptides. Then, we test different scaffold architectures and expression levels to quantify the simultaneous binding of peptide pairs to the scaffold. We show that PPI strength of the weakest binding PBD-peptide pair is critical for scaffolding efficiency and that PPI strength is limited by low binding availability of some domains and peptides in vivo . Also, we find that slight architectural variations and expression levels have a significant impact on scaffolding efficiency detected by DHFR PCA. Finally, we used DHFR PCA approaches to characterize novel PBD-peptide pairs and we identified pairs to expand the sequence toolbox for scaffold design in yeast through DHFR PCA easy-to-read signal.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".