It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
A key player in energy metabolism is phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK1) whose activity and behavior strongly influence glycolysis and thus have implications in many areas. In this research, PFK1 assays were performed to convert F6P and ATP into F-1,6-P and ADP for varied pH and ATP concentrations. PFK1 activity was assessed by evaluating F-1,6-P generation velocity in two ways: (1) directly calculating the time slope from the first two or more datapoints of measured product concentration (the initial-velocity method), and (2) by fitting all the datapoints with a differential equation explicitly representing the effects of ATP and pH (the modeling method). Similar general trends of inhibition were shown by both methods, but the former gives only a qualitative picture while the modeling method yields the degree of inhibition because the model can separate the two simultaneous roles of ATP as both a substrate of reaction and an inhibitor of PFK1. Analysis based on the model suggests that the ATP affinity is much greater to the PFK1 catalytic site than to the inhibitory site, but the inhibited ATP-PFK1-ATP complex is much slower than the uninhibited PFK1-ATP complex in product generation, leading to reduced overall reaction velocity when ATP concentration increases. The initial-velocity method is simple and useful for general observation of enzyme activity while the modeling method has advantages in quantifying the inhibition effects and providing insights into the process.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Missouri, Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Columbia, USA (GRID:grid.134936.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 3504)
2 Utah State University, Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Sciences, Logan, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 8768)
3 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, School of Animal Sciences, Blacksburg, USA (GRID:grid.438526.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 0694 4940)
4 University of Missouri, Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Columbia, USA (GRID:grid.134936.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 3504); University of Missouri, Division of Food, Nutrition and Exercise Sciences, Columbia, USA (GRID:grid.134936.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 3504)




