Step I JAK STAT pathway

Started by Reperfused
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Reperfused

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Does JAK have tyrosine activity or not?
UW qid 1121 (choice A explanation) says it has tyrosine kinase activity.
UW qid 994 (choice B explanation) says it lacks tyrosine kinase activity.

Also, it is a cytoplasmic protein and NOT a transmembrane receptor, right?
 
Thanks. That's what I thought.
But there's a discrepancy between the two UW questions I mentioned above. Any idea why? Or is it just a mistake in UW?
If you look at the diagram in QID 994, it is referring to the intrinsic kinase domain. JAK has tyrosine kinase activity as a cytoplasmic enzyme, not as an enzyme bound to the intrinsic domain of a receptor. So UWorld has not made a mistake. JAK has tyrosine kinase activity because it is a cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase. It doesn't work by being bound by anything; therefore, it is not a receptor tyrosine kinase. Being a cytoplasmic enzyme could either mean it is bound to an intrinsic domain of a receptor (which is what QID994 is getting at) or it can just be found freely in the cytoplasm (like it is). I can see the confusion though.
 
If you look at the diagram in QID 994, it is referring to the intrinsic kinase domain. JAK has tyrosine kinase activity as a cytoplasmic enzyme, not as an enzyme bound to the intrinsic domain of a receptor. So UWorld has not made a mistake. JAK has tyrosine kinase activity because it is a cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase. It doesn't work by being bound by anything; therefore, it is not a receptor tyrosine kinase. Being a cytoplasmic enzyme could either mean it is bound to an intrinsic domain of a receptor (which is what QID994 is getting at) or it can just be found freely in the cytoplasm (like it is). I can see the confusion though.

Thanks a lot!
It totally makes sense now. I knew I was missing something cuz it's hard to believe that UW would have a mistake.