A structural comparison of three isoforms of anionic trypsin from chum salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus keta</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three anionic salmon trypsin isoforms (CST-1, CST-2 and CST-3) were isolated from the pyloric caeca of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). The order of catalytic efficiency (K(m)/k(cat)) of the isoforms during BAPA hydrolysis was CST-2 > CST-1 > CST-3. In order to find a structural rationalization for the observed difference in catalytic efficiency, the X-ray crystallographic structures of the three isoforms were compared in detail. Some structural differences were observed in the C-terminal alpha-helix, interdomain loop and active-site region. From the results of the detailed comparison, it appears that the structural flexibility of the C-terminal alpha-helix, which interacts with the N-terminal domain, and the substrate-binding pocket in CST-3 are lower than those in CST-1 and CST-2. In addition, the conformation of the catalytic triad (His57, Asp102 and Ser195) differs among the three isoforms. The imidazole N atom of His57 in CST-1 and CST-2 forms a hydrogen bond to the hydroxyl O atom of Ser195, but the distance between the imidazole N atom of His57 and the hydroxyl O atom of Ser195 in CST-3 is too great (3.8 A) for the formation of a hydrogen bond. Thus, the nucleophilicity of the hydroxyl group of Ser195 in CST-3 is weaker than that in CST-1 or CST-2. Furthermore, the electrostatic potential of the substrate-binding pocket in CST-2 is markedly lower than those in CST-1 and CST-3 owing to the negative charges of Asp150, Asp153 and Glu221B that arise from the long-range effect. These results may explain the higher catalytic efficiency of CST-2 compared with CST-1 and CST-3.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".