Quantification of rate constants for successive enzymatic reactions with DNP hyperpolarized MR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A kinetic model is provided to obtain reaction rate constants in successive enzymatic reactions that are monitored using NMR spectroscopy and hyperpolarized substrates. The model was applied for simulation and analysis of the successive oxidation of choline to betaine aldehyde, and further to betaine, by the enzyme choline oxidase. This enzymatic reaction was investigated under two different sets of conditions: two different choline molecular probes were used, [1,1,2,2-D4 , 1-(13) C]choline chloride and [1,1,2,2-D4 , 2-(13) C]choline chloride, in different MR systems (clinical scanner and high-resolution spectrometer), as well as in different reactors and reaction volumes (4.8 and 0.7 mL). The kinetic analysis according to the model yielded similar results in both set-ups, supporting the robustness of the model. This was achieved despite the complex and negating influences of reaction kinetics and polarization decay, and in the presence of uncontrolled mixing characteristics, which may introduce uncertainties in both effective timing and effective pulses. The ability to quantify rate constants using hyperpolarized MR in the first seconds of consecutive enzyme activity is important for further development of the utilization of dynamic nuclear polarization-MR for biological determinations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".