Conformational Dynamics and Allostery in Pyruvate Kinase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyruvate kinase catalyzes the final step in glycolysis and is allosterically regulated to control flux through the pathway. Two models are proposed to explain how Escherichia coli pyruvate kinase type 1 is allosterically regulated: the "domain rotation model" suggests that both the domains within the monomer and the monomers within the tetramer reorient with respect to one another; the "rigid body reorientation model" proposes only a reorientation of the monomers within the tetramer causing rigidification of the active site. To test these hypotheses and elucidate the conformational and dynamic changes that drive allostery, we performed time-resolved electrospray ionization mass spectrometry coupled to hydrogen-deuterium exchange studies followed by mutagenic analysis to test the activation mechanism. Global exchange experiments, supported by thermostability studies, demonstrate that fructose 1,6-bisphosphate binding to the allosteric domain causes a shift toward a globally more dynamic ensemble of conformations. Mapping deuterium exchange to peptides within the enzyme highlight site-specific regions with altered conformational dynamics, many of which increase in conformational flexibility. Based upon these and mutagenic studies, we propose an allosteric mechanism whereby the binding of fructose 1,6-bisphosphate destabilizes an α-helix that bridges the allosteric and active site domains within the monomeric unit. This destabilizes the β-strands within the (β/α)8-barrel domain and the linked active site loops that are responsible for substrate binding. Our data are consistent with the domain rotation model but inconsistent with the rigid body reorientation model given the increased flexibility at the interdomain interface, and we can for the first time explain how fructose 1,6-bisphosphate affects the active site.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".