Asparagine Repeat Peptides: Aggregation Kinetics and Comparison with Glutamine Repeats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amino acid repeat runs are common occurrences in eukaryotic proteins, with glutamine (Q) and asparagine (N) as particularly frequent repeats. Abnormal expansion of Q-repeat domains causes at least nine neurodegenerative disorders, most likely because expansion leads to protein misfolding, aggregation, and toxicity. The linkage between Q-repeats and disease has motivated several investigations into the mechanism of aggregation and the role of Q-repeat length in aggregation. Curiously, glutamine repeats are common in vertebrates, whereas N-repeats are virtually absent in vertebrates, but common in invertebrates. One hypothesis for the lack of N-repeats in vertebrates is biophysical; that is, there is strong selective pressure in higher organisms against aggregation-prone proteins. If true, then asparagine and glutamine repeats must differ substantially in their aggregation properties despite their chemical similarities. In this work, aggregation of peptides with asparagine repeats of variable length (12-24) were characterized and compared to that of similar peptides with glutamine repeats. As with glutamine, aggregation of N-repeat peptides was strongly length-dependent. Replacement of glutamine with asparagine caused a subtle shift in the conformation of the monomer, which strongly affected the rate of aggregation. Specifically, N-repeat peptides adopted β-turn structural elements, leading to faster self-assembly into globular oligomers and much more rapid conversion into fibrillar aggregates, compared to Q-repeat peptides. These biophysical differences may account for the differing biological roles of N- versus Q-repeat domains.
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".