MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162807269 · doi:10.1139/o08-095

Kinetics, substrate specificity, and stereospecificity of two new protein tyrosine phosphatase-like inositol polyphosphatases from <i>Selenomonas lacticifex</i>

2008· article· en· W2162807269 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aaron A. Puhl, Ralf Greiner, L. Brent Selinger

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChalmers Tekniska Högskola
KeywordsDephosphorylationInositolBiochemistryTyrosinePhosphataseEnzymeProtein tyrosine phosphataseChemistryStereospecificityBiologyInositol phosphateStereochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inositol polyphosphatases (IPPases) play an important role in the metabolism of inositol polyphosphates, a class of molecules involved in signal transduction. Here we characterize 2 new protein tyrosine phosphatase-like IPPases (PhyAsl and PhyBsl) cloned from Selenomonas lacticifex that can hydrolyze myo-inositol hexakisphosphate (InsP6) in vitro. To determine their preferred substrates and stereospecificity of InsP6 dephosphorylation, a combination of kinetic and high-performance ion pair chromatography studies were conducted. Despite only 33% amino acid sequence identity between them, both enzymes display strict specificity for IPP substrates and cleave InsP6 primarily at the D-3-phosphate position (>90%). Furthermore, both enzymes predominantly degrade InsP6 to Ins(2)P via identical and very specific routes of dephosphorylation (3,4,5,6,1). Despite these similarities, PhylAsl is shown to have a slight kinetic preference for the major inositol pentakisphosphate intermediate in its InsP6 hydrolysis pathway, whereas PhyBsl displays a unique and substantial preference for an inositol tetrakisphosphate intermediate.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207