Additional file 2 of Kinetic characterization of annotated glycolytic enzymes present in cellulose-fermenting Clostridium thermocellum suggests different metabolic roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 2. FMichaelis–Menten kinetics of Pfp generated using SigmaPlot® 11.2 with data used to generate kinetic parameters and Pfp competitive assay. Figure S3. Activity of Pfp versus varied F6P concentration predicts a relatively low Km of 0.075 mM for F6P, but high Vmax, while PPi(2 mM) is used as a phosphate donor. Table S1. Data used to generate kinetics parameters for Pfp utilizing F6P + PPi in this study, Table 2. Figure S4. S7P is the substrate under investigation which is observed to have high Km of 3.236 and a much lower Vmax compared to assays with F6P. Table S2. Data used to generate kinetics parameters for Pfp utilizing S7P + PPi in this study, Table 2. Table S3. The rate of FBP production by Pfp at 45 °C was determined with F6P alone and in the presence of equimolar amounts of both F6P & S7P. There was approximately a 75% decrease in the rate of FBP production when both substrates were used in comparison to when F6P was the sole substrate, indicating that S7P could be competing for the active site. The velocity for the phosphorylation of solely S7P (2.12 mM) is also included in the figure for comparison to F6P (2 mM) phosphorylation. The production of Sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphate was confirmed by Mass Spectrometry
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.809 | 0.190 |
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".