MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007500418 · doi:10.1021/ed200395n

Illustrating Enzyme Inhibition Using Gibbs Energy Profiles

2012· article· en· W2007500418 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen L. Bearne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGibbs free energyKinetic energyEnzyme kineticsNon-competitive inhibitionThermodynamicsChemistryEnzymePhysicsBiochemistryActive siteClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gibbs energy profiles have great utility as teaching and learning tools because they present students with a visual representation of the energy changes that occur during enzyme catalysis. Unfortunately, most textbooks divorce discussions of traditional kinetic topics, such as enzyme inhibition, from discussions of these same topics in terms of Gibbs energy profiles. Examination of the changes in the values of the apparent kinetic parameters K S app, k cat app, and ( k cat / K M ) app in response to various modes of inhibition may be informative to students when presented in combination with Gibbs energy profiles. Herein, the symbolism of standard Gibbs energy profiles is utilized to derive expressions for the changes in Gibbs energy associated with the apparent kinetic parameters and to describe their behavior in the presence of either a competitive, uncompetitive, noncompetitive, or linear mixed-type inhibitor under rapid equilibrium conditions. The approach is intuitive and complementary to the traditional derivations of enzyme kinetic equations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionFrench-language works237,207