Detailed Structural Analysis of Glycosidase/Inhibitor Interactions: Complexes of Cex from <i>Cellulomonas fimi</i> with Xylobiose-Derived Aza-Sugars<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed insights into the mode of binding of a series of tight-binding aza-sugar glycosidase inhibitors of two fundamentally different classes are described through X-ray crystallographic studies of complexes with the retaining family 10 xylanase Cex from Cellulomonas fimi. Complexes with xylobiose-derived aza-sugar inhibitors of the substituted "amidine" class (xylobio-imidazole, K(i) = 150 nM; xylobio-lactam oxime, K(i) = 370 nM) reveal lateral interaction of the "glycosidic" nitrogen with the acid/base catalyst (Glu127) and hydrogen bonding of the sugar 2-hydroxyl with the catalytic nucleophile (Glu233), as expected. Tight binding of xylobio-isofagomine (K(i) = 130 nM) appears to be a consequence of strong interactions of the ring nitrogen with the catalytic nucleophile while, surprisingly, no direct protein contacts are made with the ring nitrogen of the xylobio-deoxynojirimycin analogue (K(i) = 5800 nM). Instead the nitrogen interacts with two ordered water molecules, thereby accounting for its relatively weaker binding, though it still binds some 1200-fold more tightly than does xylobiose, presumably as a consequence of electrostatic interactions at the active site. Dramatically weaker binding of these same inhibitors to the family 11 xylanase Bcx from Bacillus circulans (K(i) from 0.5 to 1.5 mM) is rationalized for the substituted amidines on the basis that this enzyme utilizes a syn protonation trajectory and likely hydrolyzes via a (2,5)B boat transition state. Weaker binding of the deoxynojirimycin and isofagomine analogues likely reflects the energetic penalty for distortion of these analogues to a (2,5)B conformation, possibly coupled with destabilizing interactions with Tyr69, a conserved, catalytically essential active site residue.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".