Protein–Protein Interactions and Substrate Channeling in Orthologous and Chimeric Aldolase–Dehydrogenase Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial aldolase-dehydrogenase complexes catalyze the last steps in the meta cleavage pathway of aromatic hydrocarbon degradation. The aldolase (TTHB246) and dehydrogenase (TTHB247) from Thermus thermophilus were separately expressed and purified from recombinant Escherichia coli. The aldolase forms a dimer, while the dehydrogenase is a monomer; these enzymes can form a stable tetrameric complex in vitro, consisting of two aldolase and two dehydrogenase subunits. Upon complex formation, the K(m) value of 4-hydroxy-2-oxopentanoate, the substrate of TTHB246, is decreased 4-fold while the K(m) of acetaldehyde, the substrate of TTHB247, is increased 3-fold. The k(cat) values of each enzyme were reduced by ~2-fold when they were in a complex. The half-life of TTHB247 at 50 °C increased by ~4-fold when it was in a complex with TTHB246. The acetaldehyde product from TTHB246 could be efficiently channelled directly to TTHB247, but the channeling efficiency for the larger propionaldehyde was ~40% lower. A single A324G substitution in TTHB246 increased the channeling efficiency of propionaldehyde to a value comparable to that of acetaldehyde. Stable and catalytically competent chimeric complexes could be formed between the T. thermophilus enzymes and the orthologous aldolase (BphI) and dehydrogenase (BphJ) from the biphenyl degradation pathway of Burkholderia xenovorans LB400. However, channeling efficiencies for acetaldehyde in these chimeric complexes were ~10%. Structural and sequence analysis suggests that interacting residues in the interface of the aldolase-dehydrogenase complex are highly conserved among homologues, but coevolution of partner enzymes is required to fine-tune this interaction to allow for efficient substrate channeling.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".