***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:  What is the best way to teach evolution? As microevolution may be configured as a branch of genetics, it being a short conceptual leap from understanding the concepts of mutation and alleles (i.e., genetics) to allele frequency change (i.e., evolution), we hypothesised that learning genetics prior to evolution might improve student understanding of evolution. In the UK, genetics and evolution are typically taught to 14- to 16-y-old secondary school students as separate topics with few links, in no particular order and sometimes with a large time span between. Here, then, we report the results of a large trial into teaching order of evolution and genetics. We modified extant questionnaires to ascertain students’ understanding of evolution and genetics along with acceptance of evolution. Students were assessed prior to teaching, immediately post teaching and again after several months. Teachers were not instructed what to teach, just to teach in a given order. Regardless of order, teaching increased understanding and acceptance, with robust signs of longer-term retention. Importantly, teaching genetics before teaching evolution has a significant (p < 0.001) impact on improving evolution understanding by 7% in questionnaire scores beyond the increase seen for those taught in the inverse order. For lower ability students, an improvement in evolution understanding was seen only if genetics was taught first. Teaching genetics first additionally had positive effects on genetics understanding, by increasing knowledge. These results suggest a simple, minimally disruptive, zero-cost intervention to improve evolution understanding: teach genetics first. This same alteration does not, however, result in a significantly increased acceptance of evolution, which reflects a weak correlation between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Qualitative focus group data highlights the role of authority figures in determination of acceptance.


Output:

What is the best way to teach evolution? We hypothesised that if students know the fundamental concepts of genetics, then this might help them understand evolution better. To evaluate this, we performed a large trial in which pupils in United Kingdom secondary schools were either taught genetics and then evolution or evolution and then genetics. We found that the students being taught genetics first had a 5%–10% improvement in their understanding of evolution, above that shown in the group taught evolution first. The change was seen in both higher- and foundation-ability classes. Indeed, in the foundation classes the genetics-first approach was the only approach that enabled an increase in evolution understanding. Teaching genetics first comes at no cost to genetics understanding (and may even improve it). However, the genetics-first approach was no different from the evolution-first approach in helping the acceptance of evolution. Qualitative follow-up studies indicated a major role for authority figures in determining acceptance, potentially explaining the weak correlation between understanding and acceptance. These results suggest a simple, minimally disruptive, zero-cost intervention to improve evolution understanding: teach genetics first.
