MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Purification of a plant nucleotide pyrophosphatase as a protein that interferes with nitrate reductase and glutamine synthetase assays

2003· article· en· W2027867076 on OpenAlexaff
Greg B. G. Moorhead, Sarah Meek, Pauline Douglas, Dave Bridges, Catherine S. Smith, Nick Morrice, Carol MacKintosh

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Biochemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsGlutamine synthetaseNitrate reductaseBiochemistryPyrophosphataseNucleotideChemistryNitrateGlutamineEnzymeBiologyAmino acidGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An activity that inhibited both glutamine synthetase (GS) and nitrate reductase (NR) was highly purified from cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) extracts. The final preparation contained an acyl-CoA oxidase and a second protein of the plant nucleotide pyrophosphatase family. This preparation hydrolysed NADH, ATP and FAD to generate AMP and was inhibited by fluoride, Cu2+, Zn2+ and Ni2+. The purified fraction had no effect on the activity of NR when reduced methylviologen was used as electron donor instead of NADH; and inhibited the oxidation of NADH by both spinach NR and an Escherichia coli extract in a time-dependent manner. The apparent inhibition of GS and NR and the ability of ATP and AMP to relieve the inhibition of NR can therefore be explained by hydrolysis of nucleotide substrates by the nucleotide pyrophosphatase. We have no evidence that the nucleotide pyrophosphatase is a specific physiological regulator of NR and GS, but suggest that nucleotide pyrophosphatase activity may underlie some confusion in the literature about the effects of nucleotides and protein factors on NR and GS in vitro.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.167 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of BiochemistrySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207