ArticlePLoS computational biology2008
Evolutionarily conserved substrate substructures for automated annotation of enzyme superfamilies.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Appraisal of biohydrogenating probiotic enzymes for the synthesis of conjugated linoleic acid isomers.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Equilibrium landscape of ingress/egress channels and gating residues of the Cytochrome P450 3A4.PloS one · 2024Article
- A strategy for large-scale comparison of evolutionary- and reaction-based classifications of enzyme function.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- The Classification and Evolution of Enzyme Function.Biophysical journal · 2015Review
- The evolution of enzyme function in the isomerases.Current opinion in structural biology · 2014Review
- Synthetic pathway for production of five-carbon alcohols from isopentenyl diphosphate.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- Characterizing the complexity of enzymes on the basis of their mechanisms and structures with a bio-computational analysis.The FEBS journal · 2011Review
- Accuracy of functional surfaces on comparatively modeled protein structures.Journal of structural and functional genomics · 2011Article
- Toward mechanistic classification of enzyme functions.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2011Review
- The chemical information ontology: provenance and disambiguation for chemical data on the biological semantic web.PloS one · 2011Article
- Article
- Quantitative comparison of catalytic mechanisms and overall reactions in convergently evolved enzymes: implications for classification of enzyme function.PLoS computational biology · 2010Article
- Missing in action: enzyme functional annotations in biological databases.Nature chemical biology · 2009Article
- FINDSITE: a combined evolution/structure-based approach to protein function prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2009Review
- FINDSITE: a threading-based approach to ligand homology modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2009Article
- Exploiting structural classifications for function prediction: towards a domain grammar for protein function.Current opinion in structural biology · 2009Review
- Protein promiscuity and its implications for biotechnology.Nature biotechnology · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evolution of enzymes affects how well a species can adapt to new environmental conditions. During enzyme evolution, certain aspects of molecular function are conserved while other aspects can vary. Aspects of function that are more difficult to change or that need to be reused in multiple contexts are often conserved, while those that vary may indicate functions that are more easily changed or that are no longer required. In analogy to the study of conservation patterns in enzyme sequences and structures, we have examined the patterns of conservation and variation in enzyme function by analyzing graph isomorphisms among enzyme substrates of a large number of enzyme superfamilies. This systematic analysis of substrate substructures establishes the conservation patterns that typify individual superfamilies. Specifically, we determined the chemical substructures that are conserved among all known substrates of a superfamily and the substructures that are reacting in these substrates and then examined the relationship between the two. Across the 42 superfamilies that were analyzed, substantial variation was found in how much of the conserved substructure is reacting, suggesting that superfamilies may not be easily grouped into discrete and separable categories. Instead, our results suggest that many superfamilies may need to be treated individually for analyses of evolution, function prediction, and guiding enzyme engineering strategies. Annotating superfamilies with these conserved and reacting substructure patterns provides information that is orthogonal to information provided by studies of conservation in superfamily sequences and structures, thereby improving the precision with which we can predict the functions of enzymes of unknown function and direct studies in enzyme engineering. Because the method is automated, it is suitable for large-scale characterization and comparison of fundamental functional capabilities of both characterized and uncharacterized enzyme superfamilies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.