MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980298123 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m204126200

Adenosine to Inosine Editing by ADAR2 Requires Formation of a Ternary Complex on the GluR-B R/G Site

2002· article· en· W1980298123 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic C. J. Jaikaran, Cynthia H. Collins, Andrew M. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA regulation and disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNA editingADARInosineRNAAdenosine deaminaseAdenosineTernary complexBiochemistryContext (archaeology)EnzymeChemistryDeaminationMolecular biologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA editing by members of the ADAR (adenosine deaminase that acts on RNA) enzyme family involves hydrolytic deamination of adenosine to inosine within the context of a double-stranded pre-mRNA substrate. Editing of the human GluR-B transcript is catalyzed by the enzyme ADAR2 at the Q/R and R/G sites. We have established a minimal RNA substrate for editing based on the R/G site and have characterized the interaction of ADAR2 with this RNA by gel shift, kinetic, and cross-linking analyses. Gel shift analysis revealed that two complexes are formed on the RNA as protein concentration is increased; the ADAR monomers can be cross-linked to one another in an RNA-dependent fashion. We performed a detailed kinetic study of the editing reaction; the data from this study are consistent with a reaction scheme in which formation of an ADAR2.RNA ternary complex is required for efficient RNA editing and in which formation of this complex is rate determining. These observations suggest that RNA adenosine deaminases function as homodimers on their RNA substrates and may partially explain regulation of RNA editing in these systems.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations43
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicRNA regulation and diseaseFrench-language works237,207