Bibliographic record
Abstract
In all forms of life, the amount of cellular protein present at any given time is tightly regulated by a combination of mechanisms of gene expression, namely transcription, mRNA degradation, translation, and protein degradation. A variety of events can trigger changes in protein abundance throughout the cell cycle by affecting the different steps of gene expression. Although the mechanisms that regulate gene expression in prokaryotes and eukaryotes are well known, the way in which protein abundance is controlled at each regulatory step remains unclear. The quantitation of protein levels is essential to understand the different aspects of gene expression, while a solid knowledge of the mechanisms and causes that affect protein levels should enable the development of new technologies, whether for human needs or environmental care. In the past, considerable effort has been invested in quantifying protein abundances in different situations such as stress, disease progression, or changing environmental conditions. More recently, significant advances have been made in the methods used to quantify protein abundance on the genome scale, in specific cells at certain time points, and/or under different environmental conditions. In this chapter, the different mechanisms that control protein abundance variation in prokaryotes and eukaryotes – that is, the biochemical features of mRNAs and proteins, as well as external factors such as environmental changes, stress, diseases, or developmental stages – are reviewed. Details are also be provided of the most relevant methodologies for the qualitative and quantitative analyses of protein abundance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".