Evolutionarily Divergent Extradiol Dioxygenases Possess Higher Specificities for Polychlorinated Biphenyl Metabolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivities of four evolutionarily divergent extradiol dioxygenases towards mono-, di-, and trichlorinated (triCl) 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyls (DHBs) were investigated: 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl dioxygenase (EC 1.13.11.39) from Burkholderia sp. strain LB400 (DHBDLB400), DHBDP6-I and DHBDP6-III from Rhodococcus globerulus P6, and 2,2',3-trihydroxybiphenyl dioxygenase from Sphingomonas sp. strain RW1 (THBDRW1). The specificity of each isozyme for particular DHBs differed by up to 3 orders of magnitude. Interestingly, the Kmapp values of each isozyme for the tested polychlorinated DHBs were invariably lower than those of monochlorinated DHBs. Moreover, each enzyme cleaved at least one of the tested chlorinated (Cl) DHBs better than it cleaved DHB (e.g., apparent specificity constants for 3',5'-dichlorinated [diCl] DHB were 2 to 13.4 times higher than for DHB). These results are consistent with structural data and modeling studies which indicate that the substrate-binding pocket of the DHBDs is hydrophobic and can accommodate the Cl DHBs, particularly in the distal portion of the pocket. Although the activity of DHBDP6-III was generally lower than that of the other three enzymes, six of eight tested Cl DHBs were better substrates for DHBDP6-III than was DHB. Indeed, DHBDP6-III had the highest apparent specificity for 4,3',5'-triCl DHB and cleaved this compound better than two of the other enzymes. Of the four enzymes, THBDRW1 had the highest specificity for 2'-Cl DHB and was at least five times more resistant to inactivation by 2'-Cl DHB, consistent with the similarity between the latter and 2,2',3-trihydroxybiphenyl. Nonetheless, THBDRW1 had the lowest specificity for 2',6'-diCl DHB and, like the other enzymes, was unable to cleave this critical PCB metabolite (kcatapp < 0.001 s(-1)).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".