***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:  Initiation of chromosome replication in bacteria is precisely timed in the cell cycle. Bacteria that harbor multiple chromosomes face the additional challenge of orchestrating replication initiation of different chromosomes. In Vibrio cholerae, the smaller of its two chromosomes, Chr2, initiates replication after Chr1 such that both chromosomes terminate replication synchronously. The delay is due to the dependence of Chr2 initiation on the replication of a site, crtS, on Chr1. The mechanism by which replication of crtS allows Chr2 replication remains unclear. Here, we show that blocking Chr1 replication indeed blocks Chr2 replication, but providing an extra crtS copy in replication-blocked Chr1 permitted Chr2 replication. This demonstrates that unreplicated crtS copies have significant activity, and suggests that a role of replication is to double the copy number of the site that sufficiently increases its activity for licensing Chr2 replication. We further show that crtS activity promotes the Chr2-specific initiator function and that this activity is required in every cell cycle, as would be expected of a cell-cycle regulator. This study reveals how increase of gene dosage through replication can be utilized in a critical regulatory switch.


Output:

The timing of DNA replication initiation is controlled in all growing cells. The conventional wisdom is that in bacteria such as E. coli, initiation occurs when sufficient active form of the initiator protein accumulates. The same scenario possibly applies to V. cholerae Chr1, whose replication in turn determines the timing of replication of its second chromosome, Chr2. This is because Chr2 replication initiation depends on the replication of a site, crtS, in Chr1. Here we show that the crtS site has significant activity towards triggering Chr2 replication without itself being replicated. We propose that the doubling of crtS copy number, normally afforded by replication, allows accumulation of enough active Chr2-specific initiator to trigger initiation. The study provides a novel example of how the timing of a gene function can be controlled by the timing of its duplication.
