Allosteric modulation of semicarbazide‐sensitive amine oxidase activities <i>in vitro</i> by imidazoline receptor ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Evidence indicates that imidazoline I(2) binding sites (I(2)BSs) are present on monoamine oxidase (MAO) and on soluble (plasma) semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase enzymes. The binding site on MAO has been described as a modulatory site, although no effects on activity are thought to have been observed as a result of ligands binding to these sites. 2. We examined the effects in vitro of several imidazoline binding site ligands on activities of bovine plasma amine oxidase (BPAO) and porcine kidney diamine oxidase (PKDAO) in a spectrophotometric protocol. 3. While both enzymes were inhibited at high concentrations of all ligands, clonidine, cirazoline and oxymetazoline were seen, at lower concentrations, to increase activity of BPAO versus benzylamine, but not of PKDAO versus putrescine. This effect was substrate dependent, with mixed or biphasic inhibition of spermidine, methylamine, p-tyramine and beta-phenylethylamine oxidation observed at cirazoline concentrations that increased benzylamine oxidation. 4. With benzylamine as substrate, clonidine decreased K(M) (EC(50) 8.82 microm, E(max) 75.1% of control) and increased V(max) (EC(50) 164.6 microm, E(max) 154.1% of control). Cirazoline decreased V(max) (EC(50) 2.15 microm, E(max) 91.4% of control), then decreased K(M) (EC(50) 5.63 microm, E(max) 42.6% of control) and increased V(max) (EC(50) 49.0 microm, E(max) 114.4% of decreased V(max) value). 5. Data for clonidine fitted a mathematical model for two-site nonessential activation plus linear intersecting noncompetitive inhibition. Data for cirazoline were consistent with involvement of a fourth site. 6. These results reveal an ability of imidazoline ligands to modulate BPAO kinetics allosterically. The derived mechanism may have functional significance with respect to modulation of MAO by I(2)BS ligands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".