MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108480069 · doi:10.1107/s1744309109052543

A conserved mechanism of autoinhibition for the AMPK kinase domain: ATP-binding site and catalytic loop refolding as a means of regulation

2010· article· en· W2108480069 on OpenAlexaff
Dene R. Littler, John R. Walker, Tara L. Davis, Leanne Wybenga-Groot, P.J. Finerty, E.M. Newman, Farell Mackenzie, Sirano Dhe‐Paganon

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAMPKProtein kinase ACell biologyBinding siteChemistryProtein subunitBiochemistryActive siteProtein structurePlasma protein bindingKinaseBiophysicsBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a highly conserved trimeric protein complex that is responsible for energy homeostasis in eukaryotic cells. Here, a 1.9 A resolution crystal structure of the isolated kinase domain from the alpha2 subunit of human AMPK, the first from a multicellular organism, is presented. This human form adopts a catalytically inactive state with distorted ATP-binding and substrate-binding sites. The ATP site is affected by changes in the base of the activation loop, which has moved into an inhibited DFG-out conformation. The substrate-binding site is disturbed by changes within the AMPKalpha2 catalytic loop that further distort the enzyme from a catalytically active form. Similar structural rearrangements have been observed in a yeast AMPK homologue in response to the binding of its auto-inhibitory domain; restructuring of the kinase catalytic loop is therefore a conserved feature of the AMPK protein family and is likely to represent an inhibitory mechanism that is utilized during function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization CommunicationsSame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207