Structure and Binding Specificity of the Second N-Terminal Cellulose-Binding Domain from <i>Cellulomonas fimi</i> Endoglucanase C<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1,4-beta-glucanase CenC from Cellulomonas fimi contains two cellulose-binding domains, CBD(N1) and CBD(N2), arranged in tandem at its N-terminus. These homologous CBDs are distinct in their selectivity for binding amorphous and not crystalline cellulose. Multidimensional heteronuclear nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy was used to determine the tertiary structure of CBD(N2) in the presence of saturating amounts of cellopentaose. A total of 1996 experimental restraints were used to calculate an ensemble of 21 final structures for the protein. CBD(Nu2) is composed of 11 beta-strands, folded into two antiparallel beta-sheets, with a topology of a jellyroll beta-sandwich. On the basis of patterns of chemical shift perturbations accompanying the addition of cellooligosaccharides, as well as the observation of intermolecular protein-sugar NOE interactions, the cellulose-binding site of CBD(N2) was identified as a cleft that lies across one face of the beta-sandwich. The thermodynamic basis for the binding of cellooligosaccharides was investigated using isothermal titration calorimetry and NMR spectroscopy. Binding is enthalpically driven and consistent with a structural model involving hydrogen bonding between the equatorial hydroxyls of the glucopyranosyl rings and polar amino acid side chains lining the CBD(N2) cleft. Affinity electrophoresis was used to determine that CBD(N2) also binds soluble beta-1,4-linked polymers of glucose, including hydroxyethylcellulose and beta-1,3-1,4-glucans. This study complements a previous analysis of CBD(N1) [Johnson, P. E., Joshi, M. D., Tomme, P., Kilburn, D. G., and McIntosh, L. P. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 14381-14394] and demonstrates that the homologous CBDs from CenC share very similar structures and sugar binding properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".