Use of hydrostatic pressure to produce ‘native’ monomers of yeast enolase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of hydrostatic pressure on yeast enolase have been studied in the presence of 1 mm Mn(2+). When compared with apo-enolase, and Mg-enolase, the Mn-enzyme differs from the others in three ways. Exposure to hydrostatic pressure does not inactivate the enzyme. If the experiments are performed in the presence of 1 mm Mg(2+), or with apo-enzyme, the enzyme is inactivated [Kornblatt, M.J., Lange R., Balny C. (1998) Eur. J. Biochem 251, 775-780]. The UV spectra of the high pressure forms of the Mg(2+)- and apo-forms of enolase are identical and distinct from the spectrum of the form obtained in the presence of 1 mm Mn(2+); this suggests that Mn(2+) remains bound to the high pressure form of enolase. With Mn-enolase, the various spectral changes do not occur in the same pressure range, indicating that multiple processes are occurring. Pressure experiments were performed as a function of [Mn(2+)] and [protein]. One of the changes in the UV spectra shows a dependence on protein concentration, indicating that enolase is dissociating into monomers. The small changes in the UV spectrum and the retention of activity lead to a model in which enolase, in the presence of high concentrations of Mn(2+), dissociates into native monomers; upon release of pressure, the enzyme is fully active. Although further spectral changes occur at higher pressures, there is no inactivation as long as Mn(2+) remains bound. We propose that the relatively small and polar nature of the subunit interface of yeast enolase, including the presence of several salt bridges, is responsible for the ability of hydrostatic pressure to dissociate this enzyme into monomers with a native-like structure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".