***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature
***DOCUMENTATION*** 
***EXAMPLES*** 
Input:
Output:

***EXAMPLES***
Input: Functionally analogous enzymes are those that catalyze similar reactions on similar substrates but do not share common ancestry, providing a window on the different structural strategies nature has used to evolve required catalysts. Identification and use of this information to improve reaction classification and computational annotation of enzymes newly discovered in the genome projects would benefit from systematic determination of reaction similarities. Here, we quantified similarity in bond changes for overall reactions and catalytic mechanisms for 95 pairs of functionally analogous enzymes (non-homologous enzymes with identical first three numbers of their EC codes) from the MACiE database. Similarity of overall reactions was computed by comparing the sets of bond changes in the transformations from substrates to products. For similarity of mechanisms, sets of bond changes occurring in each mechanistic step were compared; these similarities were then used to guide global and local alignments of mechanistic steps. Using this metric, only 44% of pairs of functionally analogous enzymes in the dataset had significantly similar overall reactions. For these enzymes, convergence to the same mechanism occurred in 33% of cases, with most pairs having at least one identical mechanistic step. Using our metric, overall reaction similarity serves as an upper bound for mechanistic similarity in functional analogs. For example, the four carbon-oxygen lyases acting on phosphates (EC 4.2.3) show neither significant overall reaction similarity nor significant mechanistic similarity. By contrast, the three carboxylic-ester hydrolases (EC 3.1.1) catalyze overall reactions with identical bond changes and have converged to almost identical mechanisms. The large proportion of enzyme pairs that do not show significant overall reaction similarity (56%) suggests that at least for the functionally analogous enzymes studied here, more stringent criteria could be used to refine definitions of EC sub-subclasses for improved discrimination in their classification of enzyme reactions. The results also indicate that mechanistic convergence of reaction steps is widespread, suggesting that quantitative measurement of mechanistic similarity can inform approaches for functional annotation.
Output:  When species evolve, their genes duplicate and diverge to allow for adaptation of their functional repertoires to the changing environment. In this scenario, unrelated genes can convergently evolve to produce proteins with the same molecular function, termed “functionally analogous.” A quantitative determination of the reaction similarities among functionally analogous enzymes could provide insight about the different structural solutions nature has used to evolve similar catalysts. Bond changes between substrates and products, and between successive reaction intermediates, were used to compare the reactions catalyzed and the mechanisms of catalysis for 95 pairs of functionally analogous enzymes. Less than half of the reactions catalyzed by unrelated enzymes, but defined as similar by the Enzyme Commission (EC) classification, are similar in terms of bond changes, suggesting that this classification often fails to capture quantitative differences between many enzyme reactions. Furthermore, we addressed for the first time whether the chemical mechanisms by which similar overall reactions are achieved in functional analogs are also similar. We conclude that convergence of reaction is often accompanied by convergence of chemical mechanism. These results will be useful for classifying enzymes, guiding functional annotation of newly determined enzyme sequences and structures and for informing the engineering of enzymes with new functions.

Input:  Electrophysiological evidence suggested primarily the involvement of the middle temporal (MT) area in depth cue integration in macaques, as opposed to human imaging data pinpointing area V3B/kinetic occipital area (V3B/KO). To clarify this conundrum, we decoded monkey functional MRI (fMRI) responses evoked by stimuli signaling near or far depths defined by binocular disparity, relative motion, and their combination, and we compared results with those from an identical experiment previously performed in humans. Responses in macaque area MT are more discriminable when two cues concurrently signal depth, and information provided by one cue is diagnostic of depth indicated by the other. This suggests that monkey area MT computes fusion of disparity and motion depth signals, exactly as shown for human area V3B/KO. Hence, these data reconcile previously reported discrepancies between depth processing in human and monkey by showing the involvement of the dorsal stream in depth cue integration using the same technique, despite the engagement of different regions.


Output:

In everyday life, we interact with a three-dimensional world that we perceive via our two-dimensional retinas. Our brain can reconstruct the third dimension from these flat retinal images using multiple sources of visual information, or cues. The horizontal displacement of the two retinal images, known as binocular disparity, and the relative motion between different objects are two important depth cues. However, to make the most of the information provided by each cue, our brains must efficiently integrate across them. To examine this process, we used neuroimaging in monkeys to record brain responses evoked by stimuli signaling depths defined by either binocular disparity or relative motion in isolation, and also when the two cues are combined congruently or incongruently. We found that cortical area MT in monkeys is involved in the fusion of these two particular depth cues, in contrast to previous human imaging data that pinpoint a more posterior cortical area, V3B/KO. Our findings support the existence of depth cue integration mechanisms in primates; however, this fusion appears to be computed in slightly different areas in humans and monkeys.
