MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994956732 · doi:10.1107/s1744309113028698

A family portrait: structural comparison of the Whirly proteins from<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>and<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>

2013· article· en· W1994956732 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurent Cappadocia, Jean‐Sébastien Parent, J. Sygusch, Normand Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersBrookhaven National LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsArabidopsis thalianaSolanum tuberosumDNABiologyGenomeArabidopsisDNA-binding proteinDNA repairGeneticsCell biologyComputational biologyGeneBotanyTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA double-strand breaks are highly detrimental genomic lesions that routinely arise in genomes. To protect the integrity of their genetic information, all organisms have evolved specialized DNA-repair mechanisms. Whirly proteins modulate DNA repair in plant chloroplasts and mitochondria by binding single-stranded DNA in a non-sequence-specific manner. Although most of the results showing the involvement of the Whirly proteins in DNA repair have been obtained in Arabidopsis thaliana, only the crystal structures of the potato Whirly proteins WHY1 and WHY2 have been reported to date. The present report of the crystal structures of the three Whirly proteins from A. thaliana (WHY1, WHY2 and WHY3) reveals that these structurally similar proteins assemble into tetramers. Furthermore, structural alignment with a potato WHY2-DNA complex reveals that the residues in these proteins are properly oriented to bind single-stranded DNA in a non-sequence-specific manner.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization CommunicationsSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207