***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:  Non-centrosomal microtubule organizing centers (ncMTOCs) are found in most differentiated cells, but how these structures regulate microtubule organization and dynamics is largely unknown. We optimized a tissue-specific degradation system to test the role of the essential centrosomal microtubule nucleators γ-tubulin ring complex (γ-TuRC) and AIR-1/Aurora A at the apical ncMTOC, where they both localize in Caenorhabditis elegans embryonic intestinal epithelial cells. As at the centrosome, the core γ-TuRC component GIP-1/GCP3 is required to recruit other γ-TuRC components to the apical ncMTOC, including MZT-1/MZT1, characterized here for the first time in animal development. In contrast, AIR-1 and MZT-1 were specifically required to recruit γ-TuRC to the centrosome, but not to centrioles or to the apical ncMTOC. Surprisingly, microtubules remain robustly organized at the apical ncMTOC upon γ-TuRC and AIR-1 co-depletion, and upon depletion of other known microtubule regulators, including TPXL-1/TPX2, ZYG-9/ch-TOG, PTRN-1/CAMSAP, and NOCA-1/Ninein. However, loss of GIP-1 removed a subset of dynamic EBP-2/EB1–marked microtubules, and the remaining dynamic microtubules grew faster. Together, these results suggest that different microtubule organizing centers (MTOCs) use discrete proteins for their function, and that the apical ncMTOC is composed of distinct populations of γ-TuRC-dependent and -independent microtubules that compete for a limited pool of resources.


Output:

Eukaryotic cells require specific arrangements of microtubules to carry out diverse functions, including cell division and intracellular transport. In dividing animal cells, microtubules are arranged radially around two centrosomes, promoting the correct distribution of DNA into daughter cells. As cells differentiate, microtubules become organized at non-centrosomal sites, often yielding decentralized microtubule arrays. Although a large body of work has focused on understanding how microtubules are grown from and organized by the centrosome, very little is known about how these activities are performed at non-centrosomal sites. We optimized a technique to degrade proteins in C. elegans differentiated cells, specifically testing the role of essential centrosome proteins in building non-centrosomal microtubules, which emanate from the apical membrane in embryonic intestinal epithelial cells. Surprisingly, we found fundamental differences between the centrosome and membrane, both in the mechanisms that recruit microtubule regulators to each site, and in the proteins that are required to build and organize microtubules. In addition, we found that when fewer microtubules grew from membranes, the remaining microtubules grew faster, suggesting competition for limited materials. Together, our study highlights differences in how centrosomes and membranes grow and organize microtubules, and that multiple pathways contribute membrane-organized microtubules.
