The position of the Gly-xxx-Gly motif in transmembrane segments modulates dimer affinityThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled CSBMCB — Membrane Proteins in Health and Disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the intrinsic low solubility of membrane proteins presents challenges to their high-resolution structure determination, insight into the amino acid sequence features and forces that stabilize their folds has been provided through study of sequence-dependent helix-helix interactions between single transmembrane (TM) helices. While the stability of helix-helix partnerships mediated by the Gly-xxx-Gly (GG4) motif is known to be generally modulated by distal interfacial residues, it has not been established whether the position of this motif, with respect to the ends of a given TM segment, affects dimer affinity. Here we examine the relationship between motif position and affinity in the homodimers of 2 single-spanning membrane protein TM sequences: glycophorin A (GpA) and bacteriophage M13 coat protein (MCP). Using the TOXCAT assay for dimer affinity on a series of GpA and MCP TM segments that have been modified with either 4 Leu residues at each end or with 8 Leu residues at the N-terminal end, we show that in each protein, centrally located GG4 motifs are capable of stronger helix-helix interactions than those proximal to TM helix ends, even when surrounding interfacial residues are maintained. The relative importance of GG4 motifs in stabilizing helix-helix interactions therefore must be considered not only in its specific residue context but also in terms of the location of the interactive surface relative to the N and C termini of alpha-helical TM segments.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".