MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251700748 · doi:10.1016/s0378-1097(02)00519-0

Identification of lysine-78 as an essential residue in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae xylose reductase

2002· article· en· W4251700748 on OpenAlexaff
Eui Myung Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPolyamine Metabolism and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiochemistrySaccharomyces cerevisiaeXyloseEnzymeActive siteResidue (chemistry)Aldehyde ReductaseYeastChemistryReductaseSite-directed mutagenesisAldo-keto reductaseLysineStereochemistryAmino acidMutantFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yeast xylose reductases are hypothesized as hybrid enzymes as their primary sequences contain elements of both the aldo–keto reductases (AKR) and short chain dehydrogenase/reductase (SDR) enzyme families. During catalysis by members of both enzyme families, an essential Lys residue H-bonds to a Tyr residue that donates proton to the aldehyde substrate. In the Saccharomyces cerevisiae xylose reductase, Tyr49 has been identified as the proton donor. However, the primary sequence of the enzyme contains two Lys residues, Lys53 and Lys78, corresponding to the conserved motifs for SDR and AKR enzyme families, respectively, that may H-bond to Tyr49. We used site-directed mutagenesis to substitute each of these Lys residues with Met. The activity of the K53M variant was slightly decreased as compared to the wild-type, while that of the K78M variant was negligible. The results suggest that Lys78 is the essential residue that H-bonds to Tyr49 during catalysis and indicate that the active site residues of yeast xylose reductases match those of the AKR, rather than SDR, enzymes. Intrinsic enzyme fluorescence spectroscopic analysis suggests that Lys78 may also contribute to the efficient binding of NADPH to the enzyme.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicPolyamine Metabolism and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207