The Ternary Structure of the Double-headed Arrowhead Protease Inhibitor API-A Complexed with Two Trypsins Reveals a Novel Reactive Site Conformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The double-headed arrowhead protease inhibitors API-A and -B from the tubers of Sagittaria sagittifolia (Linn) feature two distinct reactive sites, unlike other members of their family. Although the two inhibitors have been extensively characterized, the identities of the two P1 residues in both API-A and -B remain controversial. The crystal structure of a ternary complex at 2.48 A resolution revealed that the two trypsins bind on opposite sides of API-A and are 34 A apart. The overall fold of API-A belongs to the beta-trefoil fold and resembles that of the soybean Kunitz-type trypsin inhibitors. The two P1 residues were unambiguously assigned as Leu(87) and Lys(145), and their identities were further confirmed by site-directed mutagenesis. Reactive site 1, composed of residues P5 Met(83) to P5' Ala(92), adopts a novel conformation with the Leu(87) completely embedded in the S1 pocket even though it is an unfavorable P1 residue for trypsin. Reactive site 2, consisting of residues P5 Cys(141) to P5' Glu(150), binds trypsin in the classic mode by employing a two-disulfide-bonded loop. Analysis of the two binding interfaces sheds light on atomic details of the inhibitor specificity and also promises potential improvements in enzyme activity by engineering of the reactive sites.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".