Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25987355›Full record

ReviewJournal of molecular evolution2015

Evolution of Enzyme Kinetic Mechanisms.

Nuriye Nuray Ulusu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of molecular evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Constraints, Trade-offs and the Currency of Fitness.Journal of molecular evolution · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nuriye Nuray UlusuSchool of Medicine, Koç University, Rumelifeneri yolu, Sarıyer, Istanbul, Turkey, nulusu@ku.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review paper discusses the reciprocal kinetic behaviours of enzymes and the evolution of structure-function dichotomy. Kinetic mechanisms have evolved in response to alterations in ecological and metabolic conditions. The kinetic mechanisms of single-substrate mono-substrate enzyme reactions are easier to understand and much simpler than those of bi-bi substrate enzyme reactions. The increasing complexities of kinetic mechanisms, as well as the increasing number of enzyme subunits, can be used to shed light on the evolution of kinetic mechanisms. Enzymes with heterogeneous kinetic mechanisms attempt to achieve specific products to subsist. In many organisms, kinetic mechanisms have evolved to aid survival in response to changing environmental factors. Enzyme promiscuity is defined as adaptation to changing environmental conditions, such as the introduction of a toxin or a new carbon source. Enzyme promiscuity is defined as adaptation to changing environmental conditions, such as the introduction of a toxin or a new carbon source. Enzymes with broad substrate specificity and promiscuous properties are believed to be more evolved than single-substrate enzymes. This group of enzymes can adapt to changing environmental substrate conditions and adjust catalysing mechanisms according to the substrate's properties, and their kinetic mechanisms have evolved in response to substrate variability.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsBiocatalysisCyanobacteriaEnzymesHumansKineticsProtein SubunitsSubstrate SpecificityEnzymesProtein Subunits

Identifiers

PMID25987355
PMCPMC4472936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.