MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980559237 · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2013.01.036

Studying the RNA silencing pathway with the p19 protein

2013· review· en· W1980559237 on OpenAlexaff
Dana C. Danielson, John Paul Pezacki

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNA silencingRNATrans-acting siRNARNA-induced transcriptional silencingRNA-induced silencing complexGene silencingSmall interfering RNARNA-binding proteinBiologyRNA interferenceCell biologyComputational biologyChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origins of the RNA silencing pathway are in defense against invading viruses and in response, viruses have evolved counter-measures to interfere with the host pathway. The p19 protein is expressed by tombusviruses as a suppressor of RNA silencing and functions to sequester small RNA duplexes, thereby preventing induction of the pathway. p19 exhibits size-specific and sequence-independent binding of its small RNA ligands, binding with high affinity to duplexes 20-22 nucleotides long. p19's binding specificity and its ability to sequester small RNAs has made it a unique protein-based tool for probing the molecular mechanisms of the highly complex RNA silencing pathway in a variety of systems. Furthermore, protein engineering of this 'molecular caliper' promises novel applications in biotechnology and medicine where small RNA molecules are of remarkable interest given their potent gene regulatory abilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207