Binding Site Analysis of Cellulose Binding Domain CBD<sub>N1</sub>from Endoglucanse C of<i>Cellulomonas fimi</i>by Site-Directed Mutagenesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoglucanase C (CenC), a beta1,4 glucanase from the soil bacterium Cellulomonas fimi, binds to amorphous cellulose via two homologous cellulose binding domains, termed CBD(N1) and CBD(N2). In this work, the contributions of 10 amino acids within the binding cleft of CBD(N1) were evaluated by single site-directed mutations to alanine residues. Each isolated domain containing a single mutation was analyzed for binding to an insoluble amorphous preparation of cellulose, phosphoric acid swollen Avicel (PASA), and to a soluble glucopyranoside polymer, barley beta-glucan. The effect of any given mutation on CBD binding was similar for both substrates, suggesting that the mechanism of binding to soluble and insoluble substrates is the same. Tyrosines 19 and 85 were essential for tight binding by CBD(N1) as their replacement by alanine results in affinity decrements of approximately 100-fold on PASA, barley beta-glucan, and soluble cellooligosaccharides. The tertiary structures of unbound Y19A and Y85A were assessed by heteronuclear single quantum coherence (HSQC) spectroscopy. These studies indicated that the structures of both mutants were perturbed but that all perturbations are very near to the site of mutation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it