***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:  Ecologists have been compiling ecological networks for over a century, detailing the interactions between species in a variety of ecosystems. To this end, they have built networks for mutualistic (e.g., pollination, seed dispersal) as well as antagonistic (e.g., herbivory, parasitism) interactions. The type of interaction being represented is believed to be reflected in the structure of the network, which would differ substantially between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. Here, we put this notion to the test by attempting to determine the type of interaction represented in a network based solely on its structure. We find that, although it is easy to separate different kinds of nonecological networks, ecological networks display much structural variation, making it difficult to distinguish between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions. We therefore frame the problem as a challenge for the community of scientists interested in computational biology and machine learning. We discuss the features a good solution to this problem should possess and the obstacles that need to be overcome to achieve this goal.


Output:

In the late 1960s, Mark Kac asked, "Can one hear the shape of a drum?" challenging readers to reconstruct the geometry of the drum from a provided list of overtones. Physicists and mathematicians found that, although in general, one cannot hear the shape of a drum, many of its properties, such as its area and perimeter, can be "heard". Here, we ask whether the type of interaction being represented in a network can be "seen" when inspecting its shape—for example, whether we can distinguish networks reporting interactions between plants and their pollinators (mutually beneficial) from those representing interactions between plants and their herbivores (beneficial only to the herbivores). We show that many types of nonbiological networks can be easily separated based on structural properties, whereas determining the type of interaction represented by an ecological networks is harder. We therefore turn this problem into a challenge for the scientific community. We argue that solving this problem would greatly benefit the field, and we discuss what the consequences of a failure might be.
