MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990010975 · doi:10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01342-9

Evaluation of inhibition of the carbenicillin‐hydrolyzing β‐lactamase PSE‐4 by the clinically used mechanism‐based inhibitors

2000· article· en· W1990010975 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Therrien, Lakshmi P. Kotra, François Sanschagrin, Shahriar Mobashery, Roger C. Lévesque

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbenicillinSulbactamChemistryEnzymeClavulanic acidTazobactamAcylationEnzyme kineticsBiochemistryStereochemistryActive siteAntibioticsCatalysisAmoxicillinAmpicillin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characterization of the biochemical steps in the inactivation chemistry of clavulanic acid, sulbactam and tazobactam with the carbenicillin-hydrolyzing beta-lactamase PSE-4 from Pseudomonas aeruginosa is described. Although tazobactam showed the highest affinity to the enzyme, all three inactivators were excellent inhibitors for this enzyme. Transient inhibition was observed for the three inactivators before the onset of irreversible inactivation of the enzyme. Partition ratios (k(cat)/k(inact)) of 11, 41 and 131 were obtained with clavulanic acid, tazobactam and sulbactam, respectively. Furthermore, these values were found to be 14-fold, 3-fold and 80-fold lower, respectively, than the values obtained for the clinically important TEM-1 beta-lactamase. The kinetic findings were put in perspective by determining the computational models for the pre-acylation complexes and the immediate acyl-enzyme intermediates for all three inactivators. A discussion of the pertinent structural factors is presented, with PSE-4 showing subtle differences in interactions with the three inhibitors compared to the TEM-1 enzyme.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207