Diverse Levels of Sequence Selectivity and Catalytic Efficiency of Protein-Tyrosine Phosphatases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sequence selectivity of 14 classical protein-tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs) (PTPRA, PTPRB, PTPRC, PTPRD, PTPRO, PTP1B, SHP-1, SHP-2, HePTP, PTP-PEST, TCPTP, PTPH1, PTPD1, and PTPD2) was systematically profiled by screening their catalytic domains against combinatorial peptide libraries. All of the PTPs exhibit similar preference for pY peptides rich in acidic amino acids and disfavor positively charged sequences but differ vastly in their degrees of preference/disfavor. Some PTPs (PTP-PEST, SHP-1, and SHP-2) are highly selective for acidic over basic (or neutral) peptides (by >10(5)-fold), whereas others (PTPRA and PTPRD) show no to little sequence selectivity. PTPs also have diverse intrinsic catalytic efficiencies (kcat/KM values against optimal substrates), which differ by >10(5)-fold due to different kcat and/or KM values. Moreover, PTPs show little positional preference for the acidic residues relative to the pY residue. Mutation of Arg47 of PTP1B, which is located near the pY-1 and pY-2 residues of a bound substrate, decreased the enzymatic activity by 3-18-fold toward all pY substrates containing acidic residues anywhere within the pY-6 to pY+5 region. Similarly, mutation of Arg24, which is situated near the C-terminus of a bound substrate, adversely affected the kinetic activity of all acidic substrates. A cocrystal structure of PTP1B bound with a nephrin pY(1193) peptide suggests that Arg24 engages in electrostatic interactions with acidic residues at the pY+1, pY+2, and likely other positions. These results suggest that long-range electrostatic interactions between positively charged residues near the PTP active site and acidic residues on pY substrates allow a PTP to bind acidic substrates with similar affinities, and the varying levels of preference for acidic sequences by different PTPs are likely caused by the different electrostatic potentials near their active sites. The implications of the varying sequence selectivity and intrinsic catalytic activities with respect to PTP in vivo substrate specificity and biological functions are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".