MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RNA‐guided nucleotide modification of ribosomal and non‐ribosomal RNAs in Archaea

2004· article· en· W1934283014 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia Ziesche, Arina D. Omer, Patrick P. Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyRNATransfer RNARibosomal RNA5.8S ribosomal RNASmall nucleolar RNARibonucleoproteinOligonucleotideMethylationRibosomeNon-coding RNABiochemistryRibosomal proteinGeneticsDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Archaea use ribonucleoprotein (RNP) machines similar to those found in the eukaryotic nucleolus to methylate ribose residues in nascent ribosomal RNA. The archaeal complex required for this 2'-O-ribose-methylation consists of the C/D box sRNA guide and three proteins, the core RNA-binding aL7a protein, the aNop56 protein and the methyltransferase aFib protein. These RNP machines were reconstituted in vitro from purified recombinant components, and shown to have methylation activity when provided with a simple target oligonucleotide, complementary to the sRNA guide sequence. To obtain a better understanding of the versatility and specificity of this reaction, the activity of reconstituted particles on more complex target substrates, including 5S RNA, tRNA(Gln) and 'double target' oligonucleotides that exhibit either direct or reverse complementarity to both the D' and D box guides, has been examined. The natural 5S and tRNA(Gln) substrates were efficiently methylated in vitro, as long as the complementarity between guide and target was about 10 base pairs in length, and lacked mismatches. Maximal activity of double guide sRNAs required that both methylation sites be present in cis on the target RNA.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207