MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The moss pentatricopeptide repeat protein with a DYW domain is responsible for RNA editing of mitochondrial ccmFc transcript

2010· article· en· W1902849673 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eiji Tasaki, Mitsuru Hattori, Mamoru Sugita

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancerCare Manitoba Foundation
KeywordsRNA editingPentatricopeptide repeatRNABiologyRNA-binding proteinGuide RNAGeneticsMolecular biologyGeneGenome editingGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most land plants RNA editing frequently occurs in many organelle transcripts, but little is known about the molecular mechanisms of the organelle RNA editing process. In this study, we have characterized the Physcomitrella patens PpPPR_71 gene that is required for RNA editing of the ccmFc transcript. This transcript harbors two RNA editing sites, ccmF-1 and ccmF-2, that are separated by 18 nucleotides. Complementary DNA sequence analysis of ccmFc suggested that RNA editing at the ccmF-1 site occurred before ccmF-2 editing. RNA editing of the ccmF-2 downstream site was specifically impaired by disruption of the PpPPR_71 gene that encodes a polypeptide with 17 pentatricopeptide repeat motifs and a C-terminal DYW domain. The recombinant PpPPR_71 protein expressed in Escherichia coli specifically bound to the 46-nucleotide sequence containing the ccmF-2 editing site. The binding affinity of the recombinant PpPPR_71 was strongest when using the edited RNA at ccmF-1. In addition, the DYW domain also binds to the surrounding ccmF-2 editing site. We conclude that PpPPR_71 is an RNA-binding protein that acts as a site recognition factor in mitochondrial RNA editing.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations97
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207