The Difference in the Carboxy-Terminal Sequence Is Responsible for the Difference in the Activity of Chicken and Rat Liver Fructose-2,6-Bisphosphatase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase domain of the bifunctional chicken liver enzyme 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase shares approximately 95% amino acid sequence homology with that of the rat enzyme. However, these two enzymes are significantly different in their phosphatase activities. In this report, we show that the COOH-terminal 25 amino acids of the two enzymes are responsible for the different enzymatic activities. Although these 25 amino acids are not required for the phosphatase activity, their removal diminishes the differences in the activities between the two enzymes. In addition, two chimeric molecules (one consisting of the catalytic core of the chicken bisphosphatase domain and the rat COOH-terminal 25 amino acids, and the other consisting of most of the intact chicken enzyme and the rat COOH-terminal 25 amino acids) showed the same kinetic properties as the rat enzyme. Furthermore, substitution of the residues Pro456Pro457Ala458 of the chicken enzyme with GluAlaGlu, the corresponding sequence in the rat liver enzyme, yields a chicken enzyme that behaves like the rat enzyme. These results demonstrate that the different bisphosphatase activities of the chicken and rat liver bifunctional enzymes can be attributed to the differences in their COOH-terminal amino acid sequences, particularly the three residues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".