MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767955451 · doi:10.1002/cbic.201700521

Kinetic Analysis of PRMT1 Reveals Multifactorial Processivity and a Sequential Ordered Mechanism

2017· article· en· W2767955451 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer I. Brown, Jolinde van Strien, Nathaniel I. Martin, Adam Frankel

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioChem · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversiteit Utrecht
KeywordsProcessivityMechanism (biology)ChemistryBiophysicsComputational chemistryComputational biologyBiologyPhysicsBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arginine methylation is a prevalent post‐translational modification in eukaryotic cells. Two significant debates exist within the field: do these enzymes dimethylate their substrates in a processive or distributive manner, and do these enzymes operate using a random or sequential method of bisubstrate binding? We revealed that human protein arginine N ‐methyltransferase 1 (PRMT1) enzyme kinetics are dependent on substrate sequence. Further, peptides containing an N η‐hydroxyarginine generally demonstrated substrate inhibition and had improved K M values, which evoked a possible role in inhibitor design. We also revealed that the perceived degree of enzyme processivity is a function of both cofactor and enzyme concentration, suggesting that previous conclusions about PRMT sequential methyl transfer mechanisms require reassessment. Finally, we demonstrated a sequential ordered Bi–Bi kinetic mechanism for PRMT1, based on steady‐state kinetic analysis. Together, our data indicate a PRMT1 mechanism of action and processivity that might also extend to other functionally and structurally conserved PRMTs.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemBioChemSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207