Data from: Dissection of the role of a SH3 domain in the evolution of binding preference of paralogous proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions drive many cellular processes. Some protein interactions are directed by Src homology 3 (SH3) domains that bind proline-rich motifs on other proteins. The evolution of the binding specificity of SH3 domains is not completely understood, particularly following gene duplication. Paralogous genes accumulate mutations that can modify protein functions and, for SH3 domains, their binding preferences. Here, we examined how the binding of the SH3 domains of two paralogous yeast type I myosins, Myo3 and Myo5, evolved following duplication. We found that the paralogs have subtly different SH3-dependent interaction profiles. However, by swapping SH3 domains between the paralogs and characterizing the SH3 domains freed from their protein context, we find that few of the differences in interactions, if any, depend on the SH3 domains themselves. We used ancestral sequence reconstruction to resurrect the pre-duplication SH3 domains and examined, moving back in time, how the binding preference changed. Although the closest ancestor of the two domains had a very similar binding preference as the extant ones, older ancestral domains displayed a gradual loss of interaction with the modern interaction partners when inserted in the extant paralogs. Molecular docking and experimental characterization of the free ancestral domains showed that their affinity with the proline motifs is likely not the cause for this loss of binding. Taken together, our results suggest that the SH3 and its host protein could create intramolecular or allosteric interactions essential for the SH3-dependent PPIs, making domains not functionally equivalent even when they have the same binding specificity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.052 |
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".