MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stress-induced production, processing and stability of a seripauperin protein, Pau5p, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

2008· article· en· W1558695074 on OpenAlexafffund
Zongli Luo, Hennie J.J. van Vuuren

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Yeast Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeastBiologyOsmotic shockBiochemistryFermentationGeneWineIntracellularHomology (biology)Food science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PAU genes comprise the largest multiple gene family in Saccharomyces cerevisiae with 24 members whose sequence homology ranges from 82% to 100%. Although transcriptional regulation for some of the PAU genes has been reported, none of the Pau proteins has been characterized. We constructed yeast strains encoding a C-terminal tandem affinity purification-tagged Pau5 in the PAU5 locus to study Pau5 production and properties in vivo. Pau5 is highly induced by low temperature, low oxygen and wine fermentation conditions. It is unstable in cells grown under laboratory conditions and is temporarily stabilized by low oxygen, osmotic and ethanol stresses. Pau5 degradation is accompanied by an unknown modification with a gradual increase in molecular mass by 3 kDa. Furthermore, Pau5 is O-mannosylated mainly by Pmt1; mannosylation enhances stability of the protein. The mannosylated Pau5 is soluble whereas the nonmannosylated proform Pau5 is an integral membrane protein. Our findings suggest that the intracellular concentration of Pau5 is regulated by wine making stress both at transcriptional and posttranslational levels; Pau5 might play a role in adaptation of yeast cells during alcoholic fermentations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Yeast ResearchSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207