The Effect of a Covalent and a Noncovalent Small-Molecule Inhibitor on the Structure of Abg β-Glucosidase in the Gas-Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of binding two small-molecule inhibitors to Agrobacterium sp. strain ATCC 21400 (Abg) β-glucosidase on the conformations and stability of gas-phase ions of Abg have been investigated. Biotin-iminosugar conjugate (BIC) binds noncovalently to Abg while 2,4-dinitro-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-β-D-glucopyranoside (2FG-DNP) binds covalently with loss of DNP. In solution, Abg is a dimer. Mass spectra show predominantly dimer ions, provided care is taken to avoid dissociation of dimers in solution and dimer ions in the ion sampling interface. When excess inhibitor, either covalent or noncovalent, is added to solutions of Abg, mass spectra show peaks almost entirely from 2:2 inhibitor-enzyme dimer complexes. Tandem mass spectrometry experiments show similar dissociation channels for the apo-enzyme and 2FG-enzyme dimers. The +21 dimer produces +10 and +11 monomers. The internal energy required to dissociate the +21 2FG-enzyme to its monomers (767 ± 30 eV) is about 36 eV higher than that for the apo-enzyme dimer (731 ± 6 eV), reflecting the stabilization of the free enzyme dimer by the 2FG inhibitor. The primary dissociation channels for the noncovalent BIC-enzyme dimer are loss of neutral and charged BIC. The internal energy required to induce loss of BIC is 482 ± 8 eV, considerably less than that required to dissociate the dimers. For a given charge state, ions of the covalent and noncovalent complexes have about 15 % and 25 % lower cross sections, respectively, compared with the apo-enzyme. Thus, binding the inhibitors causes the gas-phase protein to adopt more compact conformations. Noncovalent binding surprisingly produces the greatest change in protein ion conformation, despite the weaker inhibitor binding. ᅟ
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".