α-Fluorophosphonates reveal how a phosphomutase conserves transition state conformation over hexose recognition in its two-step reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
β-Phosphoglucomutase (βPGM) catalyzes isomerization of β-D-glucose 1-phosphate (βG1P) into D-glucose 6-phosphate (G6P) via sequential phosphoryl transfer steps using a β-D-glucose 1,6-bisphosphate (βG16BP) intermediate. Synthetic fluoromethylenephosphonate and methylenephosphonate analogs of βG1P deliver novel step 1 transition state analog (TSA) complexes for βPGM, incorporating trifluoromagnesate and tetrafluoroaluminate surrogates of the phosphoryl group. Within an invariant protein conformation, the β-D-glucopyranose ring in the βG1P TSA complexes (step 1) is flipped over and shifted relative to the G6P TSA complexes (step 2). Its equatorial hydroxyl groups are hydrogen-bonded directly to the enzyme rather than indirectly via water molecules as in step 2. The (C)O-P bond orientation for binding the phosphate in the inert phosphate site differs by ∼ 30° between steps 1 and 2. By contrast, the orientations for the axial O-Mg-O alignment for the TSA of the phosphoryl group in the catalytic site differ by only ∼ 5°, and the atoms representing the five phosphorus-bonded oxygens in the two transition states (TSs) are virtually superimposable. The conformation of βG16BP in step 1 does not fit into the same invariant active site for step 2 by simple positional interchange of the phosphates: the TS alignment is achieved by conformational change of the hexose rather than the protein.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".