Uncovering Sequence and Structural Characteristics of Fungal Expansin‐Related Proteins With Potential to Drive Substrate Targeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expansins loosen plant cell wall networks through disrupting non-covalent bonds between cellulose microfibrils and matrix polysaccharides. Whereas expansins were first discovered in plants, expansin-related proteins have since been identified in bacteria and fungi. The biological function of microbial expansins remains unclear; however, several studies have shown distinct binding preferences toward different structural polysaccharides. Earlier studies of bacterial expansin-related proteins uncovered sequence and structural features that correlate to substrate binding. Herein, 20 fungal expansin-related sequences were recombinantly produced in Komagataella phaffii, and the purified proteins were compared in terms of substrate binding to cellulosic and chitinous substrates. The impact of pH on the zeta potential of prioritized substrates was also measured, and Principal Component Analysis was performed to uncover correlations between protein characteristics (e.g., pI, hydrophobicity, surface charge distribution) and measured substrate binding preferences. Whereas acidic proteins with a predicted pI less than 5.0 preferentially bound to chitin, basic proteins with pI greater than 8.0 preferentially bound to xylan and xylan-containing fiber. Similar to many cellulases, binding to cellulose was correlated to relatively high aromatic amino acid content in the protein sequence and presence of a carbohydrate binding module (CBM), which in the case of expansins is a C-terminal CBM63. Whereas overall sequence characteristics could be correlated to substrate binding preference, the identity of amino acids occupying conserved positions that impact protein activity was better correlated with loosenin versus expansin classifications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".