Table 1.

Computer modeling accurately predicts STAT3 protein t1/2 in EBV cells generated from 8 of 8 AD-HIES patients

Mutation categoryGenotype (N)*Stability prediction (stable = 0; unstable = 2)Measured t1/2 ± SD (h)
None wt/wt (N = 8) Stable (0) 25 ± 2 
Functional R382W/wt (N = 4) Stable (0.4) 25.5 ± 3.3 
Structural V463del/wt (N = 6) Destabilizing (1) 6.8 ± 4.8 
Y657S/wt (N = 6) Significantly destabilizing (1.8) 5.5 ± 4.1 
T622I/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.6) 18 ± 5.8 
Structural-functional R423Q/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.6) 20 ± 2.3 
S611N/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (1.4) 7 ± 3.6 
N647D/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.8) 18.5 ± 3 
V637M/wt (N=4) Destabilizing (1) 5.3 ± 4.5 
Mutation categoryGenotype (N)*Stability prediction (stable = 0; unstable = 2)Measured t1/2 ± SD (h)
None wt/wt (N = 8) Stable (0) 25 ± 2 
Functional R382W/wt (N = 4) Stable (0.4) 25.5 ± 3.3 
Structural V463del/wt (N = 6) Destabilizing (1) 6.8 ± 4.8 
Y657S/wt (N = 6) Significantly destabilizing (1.8) 5.5 ± 4.1 
T622I/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.6) 18 ± 5.8 
Structural-functional R423Q/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.6) 20 ± 2.3 
S611N/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (1.4) 7 ± 3.6 
N647D/wt (N = 4) Destabilizing (0.8) 18.5 ± 3 
V637M/wt (N=4) Destabilizing (1) 5.3 ± 4.5 
*

N = number of experiments performed with each EBV cell.

P < .0001 compared with WT.

P < .05 compared with WT.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal