rRNA processing intermediates may not contribute to ribosome biogenesis (560.9)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the ribosomal RNA in a eukaryotic ribosome is derived from a common nucleolar transcript via a seemingly complex cleavage pathway which can vary greatly from organism to organism. In S, cerevisiae, for example, two steps have been reported for the five 5’ ETS but in S. pombe as many as six intermediates have been observed. The significance of these steps in for ribosome biogenesis remains unclear including the differences which are observed between organisms. In this study, the processing of the 5’ ETS in S. pombe cells has been reexamine using RT‐PCR, ligation‐mediated RT‐PCR and targeted mutagenesis. The results suggest that some intermediate steps are very minor or may be artifacts of the mapping techniques. More important, the complete removal of a cleavage site can leave levels of mature rRNA essentially unchanged. Taken together, such observations raise the possibility that at least some intermediates are unnecessary, are rare events or even experimental artifacts which do not contribute to rRNA maturation or ribosome biogenesis. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".