No, it literally isn’t. That’s precisely why the name you cited literally includes transpeptidases and literally adds “-like.”
No, structures tend to be named for the protein or group(s) of proteins in which they were first described. Structural biologists have more open minds about this.
Not everyone agrees on the name, either. Some call it by its structural name, which includes the only widespread function (still likely not universal) of the fold, metal ion binding:
The group is in no way limited to lactamases and transpeptidases. It includes phosphodiesterases, ribonucleases, glyoxalases, phospholipases, and more. This is how protein evolution works.
This was known long before 2004, so Axe had no excuse. That’s why I’m pointing out that any adoption of the DI’s misuse of the term in 2024 is a rhetorical mistake.
There is a very partial list of enzymes in the Fig.1 legend of the paper linked above.
It would be better, but I’d have still rejected the paper if Axe had stopped with that, because beta-lactamase assays are available from Sigma-Aldrich and cheap.
Indeed. It was a complete failure of peer review.
It’s even more interesting if you contrast it with the careful work presented in Axe’s PNAS barnase paper, which included more senior coauthors.