MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998335195 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047121

The eIF4E-Binding Protein Eap1p Functions in Vts1p-Mediated Transcript Decay

2012· article· en· W1998335195 on OpenAlexaff
Laura M. Rendl, Melissa A. Bieman, Heli K. Vari, Craig A. Smibert

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEIF4ERNA-binding proteinMessenger RNACell biologyRNABiologyP-bodiesTranslation (biology)Poly(A)-binding proteinNonsense-mediated decayPlasma protein bindingProtein biosynthesisMolecular biologyGeneticsGeneRNA splicing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence-specific RNA binding proteins can induce the degradation of mRNAs through their ability to recruit proteins that trigger transcript destabilization. For example, Vts1p, the S. cerevisiae member of the Smaug family of RNA binding proteins, is thought to induce transcript decay by recruiting the Ccr4p-Pop2p-Not deadenylase complex to target mRNAs. The resulting deadenylation triggers transcript decapping followed by 5'-to-3' exonucleolytic decay. Here we show that the eIF4E-binding protein, Eap1p, is required for efficient degradation of Vts1p target transcripts and that this role involves the ability of Eap1p to interact with eIF4E. Eap1p does not stimulate deadenylation of Vts1p target transcripts but is instead involved in decapping. Eap1p interacts with Vts1p and mediates an indirect interaction between Vts1p and eIF4E. Taken together these data suggest a model whereby the interaction of Vts1p with Eap1p at target mRNAs stimulates decapping.

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 score0.005

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207