MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319069604 · doi:10.1021/acschembio.2c00873

Strong Feedback Inhibition of Key Enzymes in the Morphine Biosynthetic Pathway from Opium Poppy Detectable in Engineered Yeast

2023· article· en· W4319069604 on OpenAlexafffund
Natali Özber, Lisa Yu, Jillian M. Hagel, Peter J. Facchini

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Chemical Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBerberine and alkaloids research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGenome AlbertaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsThebaineChemistryBiochemistryYeastBiosynthesisEnzymeMorphineBiologyPharmacologyCodeine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic screening of morphine pathway intermediates in engineered yeast revealed key biosynthetic enzymes displaying potent feedback inhibition: 3′-hydroxy- N -methylcoclaurine 4′-methyltransferase (4′OMT), which yields ( S )-reticuline, and the coupled salutaridinol-7- O -acetyltransferase (SalAT) and thebaine synthase (THS2) enzyme system that produces thebaine. The addition of deuterated reticuline-d1 to a yeast strain able to convert ( S )-norcoclaurine to ( S )-reticuline showed reduced product accumulation in response to the feeding of all four successive pathway intermediates. Similarly, the addition of deuterated thebaine-d3 to a yeast strain able to convert salutaridine to thebaine showed reduced product accumulation from exogenous salutaridine or salutaridinol. In vitro analysis showed that reticuline is a noncompetitive inhibitor of 4′OMT, whereas thebaine exerts mixed inhibition on SalAT/THS2. In a yeast strain capable of de novo morphine biosynthesis, the addition of reticuline and thebaine resulted in the accumulation of several pathway intermediates. In contrast, morphine had no effect, suggesting that circumventing the interaction of reticuline and thebaine with 4′OMT and SalAT/THS2, respectively, could substantially increase opiate alkaloid titers in engineered yeast.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Chemical BiologySame topicBerberine and alkaloids researchFrench-language works237,207