MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PAX Proteins and Fables of Their Reconstruction

2012· review· en· W1988378085 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeoboxBiologyRNA splicingAlternative splicingComputational biologyGeneticsGeneHomology (biology)Protein domainDNAEvolutionary biologyGene duplicationGene isoformRNAGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PAX proteins derive their name from the "paired box," a region of homology first described between the Drosophila paired (Prd) and gooseberry (Gsb) proteins and later found to encode a sequence-specific DNA-binding activity. Both Prd and Gsb also contain a homeodomain, and this combination of DNA-binding domains is conserved in ancestral predecessors, reflecting an early "homeodomain-capturing" event. In addition, the prototypic PAX protein was thought to contain 2 additional features, namely the octapeptide (or eh1) motif and PHT (or OAR) domain-both modulate PAX regulatory activity but are not unique to the PAX family. Together with gene duplications and mutagenesis, a domain loss model accounts for the distinct architecture and sequence of extant PAX proteins. Despite the disparate evolutionary history of these 4 conserved motifs, there is a remarkable level of interplay that is modulated by discrete sequences elsewhere in the protein. Here, the implications with respect to the evolution of PAX protein structure and activity are discussed, it is suggested that the sum of these constituent domains is more than the contribution of individual parts. When combined with alternative splicing and posttranslational modifications, this model confers an extraordinary degree of functional diversity to even highly related PAX proteins.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene ExpressionSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207