MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979089266 · doi:10.1021/bi0344230

Engineering the Primary Substrate Specificity of <i>Streptomyces griseus</i> Trypsin

2003· article· en· W1979089266 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Page, Sui‐Lam Wong, Jeff Hewitt, N.C.J. Strynadka, Ross T. A. MacGillivray

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsProteasesStreptomyces griseusBacillus subtilisTrypsinMutantRecombinant DNASerineProtein engineeringBiochemistryChemistryEnzymeSubstrate (aquarium)StreptomycetaceaeActinomycetalesStereochemistryBiologyStreptomycesBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Streptomyces griseus trypsin (SGT) was chosen as a model scaffold for the development of serine proteases with enhanced substrate specificity. Recombinant SGT has been produced in a Bacillus subtilis expression system in a soluble active form and purified to homogeneity. The recombinant and native proteases have nearly identical enzymatic properties and structures. Four SGT mutants with alterations in the S1 substrate binding pocket (T190A, T190P, T190S, and T190V) were also expressed. The T190P mutant demonstrated the largest shift to a preference for Arg versus Lys in the P1 site. This was shown by a minor reduction in catalytic activity toward an Arg-containing substrate (k(cat) reduction of 25%). The crystal structures of the recombinant SGT and the T190P mutant in a complex with the inhibitor benzamidine were obtained at high resolution (approximately 1.9 A). The increase in P1 specificity, achieved with minimal effect on the catalytic efficiency, demonstrates that the T190P mutant is an ideal candidate for the design of additional substrate specificity engineered into the S2 to S4 binding pockets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207