MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006769490 · doi:10.1021/bi011252v

Catalysis and Binding in <scp>l</scp>-Ribulose-5-Phosphate 4-Epimerase:  A Comparison with <scp>l</scp>-Fuculose-1-Phosphate Aldolase<sup>,</sup>

2001· article· en· W2006769490 on OpenAlexaff
Jomy Samuel, Yu Luo, Paul Morgan, N.C.J. Strynadka, Martin E. Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCarbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAldolase APhosphateChemistryBiochemistryRibuloseCatalysisRuBisCOEnzymeStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L-Ribulose-5-phosphate (L-Ru5P) 4-epimerase and L-fuculose-1-phosphate (L-Fuc1P) aldolase are evolutionarily related enzymes that display 26% sequence identity and a very high degree of structural similarity. They both employ a divalent cation in the formation and stabilization of an enolate during catalysis, and both are able to deprotonate the C-4 hydroxyl group of a phosphoketose substrate. Despite these many similarities, subtle distinctions must be present which allow the enzymes to catalyze two seemingly different reactions and to accommodate substrates differing greatly in the position of the phosphate (C-5 vs C-1). Asp76 of the epimerase corresponds to the key catalytic acid/base residue Glu73 of the aldolase. The D76N mutant of the epimerase retained considerable activity, indicating it is not a key catalytic residue in this enzyme. In addition, the D76E mutant did not show enhanced levels of background aldolase activity. Mutations of residues in the putative phosphate-binding pocket of the epimerase (N28A and K42M) showed dramatically higher values of K(M) for L-Ru5P. This indicates that both enzymes utilize the same phosphate recognition pocket, and since the phosphates are positioned at opposite ends of the respective substrates, the two enzymes must bind their substrates in a reversed or "flipped" orientation. The epimerase mutant D120N displays a 3000-fold decrease in the value of k(cat), suggesting that Asp120' provides a key catalytic acid/base residue in this enzyme. Analysis of the D120N mutant by X-ray crystallography shows that its structure is indistinguishable from that of the wild-type enzyme and that the decrease in activity was not simply due to a structural perturbation of the active site. Previous work [Lee, L. V., Poyner, R. R., Vu, M. V., and Cleland, W. W. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 4821-4830] has indicated that Tyr229' likely provides the other catalytic acid/base residue. Both of these residues are supplied by an adjacent subunit. Modeling of L-Ru5P into the active site of the epimerase structure suggests that Tyr229' is responsible for deprotonating L-Ru5P and Asp120' is responsible for deprotonating its epimer, D-Xu5P.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicCarbohydrate Chemistry and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207