MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986429988 · doi:10.1128/mcb.01805-07

Deletion of Rnt1p Alters the Proportion of Open versus Closed rRNA Gene Repeats in Yeast

2007· article· en· W1986429988 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Catala, Maxime Tremblay, Éric Samson, Antonio Conconi, Sherif Abou Elela

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyRibosomal RNAChromatinGeneticsGeneRNase PRNA polymerase IInternal transcribed spacerTranscription (linguistics)Molecular biologyRNARNA polymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the double-stranded-RNA-specific RNase III (Rnt1p) is required for the processing of pre-rRNA and coprecipitates with transcriptionally active rRNA gene repeats. Here we show that Rnt1p physically interacts with RNA polymerase I (RNAPI) and its deletion decreases the transcription of the rRNA gene and increases the number of rRNA genes with an open chromatin structure. In contrast, depletion of ribosomal proteins or factors that impair RNAPI termination did not increase the number of open rRNA gene repeats, suggesting that changes in the ratio of open and closed rRNA gene chromatin is not due to a nonspecific response to ribosome depletion or impaired termination. The results demonstrate that defects in pre-rRNA processing can influence the chromatin structure of the rRNA gene arrays and reveal links among the rRNA gene chromatin, transcription, and processing.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207