Chloroplast protein targeting involves localized translation in <i>Chlamydomonas</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The compartmentalization of eukaryotic cells requires that newly synthesized proteins be targeted to the compartments in which they function. In chloroplasts, a few thousand proteins function in photosynthesis, expression of the chloroplast genome, and other processes. Most chloroplast proteins are synthesized in the cytoplasm, imported, and then targeted to a specific chloroplast compartment. The remainder are encoded by the chloroplast genome, synthesized within the organelle, and targeted by mechanisms that are only beginning to be elucidated. We used fluorescence confocal microscopy to explore the targeting mechanisms used by several chloroplast proteins in the green alga Chlamydomonas. These include the small subunit of ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase (rubisco) and the light-harvesting complex II (LHCII) subunits, which are imported from the cytoplasm, and 2 proteins synthesized in the chloroplast: the D1 subunit of photosystem II and the rubisco large subunit. We determined whether the targeting of each protein involves localized translation of the mRNA that encodes it. When this was the case, we explored whether the targeting sequence was in the nascent polypeptide or in the mRNA, based on whether the localization was translation-dependent or -independent, respectively. The results reveal 2 novel examples of targeting by localized translation, in LHCII subunit import and the targeting of the rubisco large subunit to the pyrenoid. They also demonstrate examples of each of the three known mechanisms-posttranslational, cotranslational (signal recognition particle-mediated), and mRNA-based-in the targeting of specific chloroplast proteins. Our findings can help guide the exploration of these pathways at the biochemical level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".