Probing the Promiscuous Active Site of <i>myo</i>-Inositol Dehydrogenase Using Synthetic Substrates, Homology Modeling, and Active Site Modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The active site of myo-inositol dehydrogenase (IDH, EC 1.1.1.18) from Bacillus subtilis recognizes a variety of mono- and disaccharides, as well as 1l-4-O-substituted inositol derivatives. It catalyzes the NAD+-dependent oxidation of the axial alcohol of these substrates with comparable kinetic constants. We have found that 4-O-p-toluenesulfonyl-myo-inositol does not act as a substrate for IDH, in contrast to structurally similar compounds such as those bearing substituted benzyl substituents in the same position. X-ray crystallographic analysis of 4-O-p-toluenesulfonyl-myo-inositol and 4-O-(2-naphthyl)methyl-myo-inositol, which is a substrate for IDH, shows a distinct difference in the preferred conformation of the aryl substituent. Conformational analysis of known substrates of IDH suggests that this conformational difference may account for the difference in reactivity of 4-O-p-toluenesulfonyl-myo-inositol in the presence of IDH. A sequence alignment of IDH with the homologous glucose-fructose oxidoreductase allowed the construction of an homology model of inositol dehydrogenase, to which NADH and 4-O-benzyl-scyllo-inosose were docked and the active site energy minimized. The active site model is consistent with all experimental results and suggests that a conserved tyrosine-glycine-tyrosine motif forms the hydrophobic pocket adjoining the site of inositol recognition. Y233F and Y235F retain activity, while Y233R and Y235R do not. A histidine-aspartate pair, H176 and D172, are proposed to act as a dyad in which H176 is the active site acid/base. The enzyme is inactivated by diethyl pyrocarbonate, and the mutants H176A and D172N show a marked loss of activity. Kinetic isotope effect experiments with D172N indicate that chemistry is rate-determining for this mutant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".