MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887754918 · doi:10.1074/jbc.ac118.004412

Substrate N2 atom recognition mechanism in pierisin family DNA-targeting, guanine-specific ADP-ribosyltransferase ScARP

2018· article· en· W2887754918 on OpenAlexaff
Toru Yoshida, Hideaki Tsuge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsGuanineSubfamilyStereochemistryChemistryBiochemistryBiologyNucleotide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ScARP from the bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor belongs to the pierisin family of DNA-targeting ADP-ribosyltransferases (ARTs). These enzymes ADP-ribosylate the N 2 amino groups of guanine residues in DNA to yield N 2 -(ADP-ribos-1-yl)-2′-deoxyguanosine. Although the structures of pierisin-1 and Scabin were revealed recently, the substrate recognition mechanisms remain poorly understood because of the lack of a substrate-binding structure. Here, we report the apo structure of ScARP and of ScARP bound to NADH and its GDP substrate at 1.50 and 1.57 Å resolutions, respectively. The bound structure revealed that the guanine of GDP is trapped between N -ribose of NADH and Trp-159. Interestingly, N 2 and N 3 of guanine formed hydrogen bonds with the OE1 and NE2 atoms of Gln-162, respectively. We directly observed that the ADP-ribosylating toxin turn-turn (ARTT)-loop, including Trp-159 and Gln-162, plays a key role in the specificity of DNA-targeting, guanine-specific ARTs as well as protein-targeting ARTs such as the C3 exoenzyme. We propose that the ARTT-loop recognition is a common substrate-recognition mechanism in the pierisin family. Furthermore, this complex structure sheds light on similarities and differences among two subclasses that are distinguished by conserved structural motifs: H-Y-E in the ARTD subfamily and R-S-E in the ARTC subfamily. The spatial arrangements of the electrophile and nucleophile were the same, providing the first evidence for a common reaction mechanism in these ARTs. ARTC (including ScARP) uses the ARTT-loop for substrate recognition, whereas ARTD (represented by Arr) uses the C-terminal helix instead of the ARTT-loop. These observations could help inform efforts to improve ART inhibitors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207