***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:  Studies of neuron-behaviour correlation and causal manipulation have long been used separately to understand the neural basis of perception. Yet these approaches sometimes lead to drastically conflicting conclusions about the functional role of brain areas. Theories that focus only on choice-related neuronal activity cannot reconcile those findings without additional experiments involving large-scale recordings to measure interneuronal correlations. By expanding current theories of neural coding and incorporating results from inactivation experiments, we demonstrate here that it is possible to infer decoding weights of different brain areas at a coarse scale without precise knowledge of the correlation structure. We apply this technique to neural data collected from two different cortical areas in macaque monkeys trained to perform a heading discrimination task. We identify two opposing decoding schemes, each consistent with data depending on the nature of correlated noise. Our theory makes specific testable predictions to distinguish these scenarios experimentally without requiring measurement of the underlying noise correlations.


Output:

The neocortex is structurally organized into distinct brain areas. The role of specific brain areas in sensory perception is typically studied using two kinds of laboratory experiments: those that measure correlations between neural activity and reported percepts, and those that inactivate a brain region and measure the resulting changes in percepts. The two types of experiments have generally been interpreted in isolation, in part because no theory has been able combine their outcomes. Here, we describe a mathematical framework that synthesizes both kinds of results, giving us a new way to assess how different brain areas contribute to perception. When we apply our framework to experiments on behaving monkeys, we discover two models that can explain the perplexing finding that one brain area can predict an animal’s reported percepts, even though the percepts are not affected when that brain area is inactivated. The two models ascribe dramatically different efficiencies to brain computation. We show that these two models could be distinguished by a proposed experiment that measures correlations while inactivating different brain areas.
