MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001209104 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m705655200

Structural Basis of Ubiquitin Recognition by the Ubiquitin-associated (UBA) Domain of the Ubiquitin Ligase EDD

2007· article· en· W2001209104 on OpenAlexaff
Guennadi Kozlov, Long Nguyen, Lin Tong, Grégory De Crescenzo, Morag Park, Kalle Gehring

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUbiquitinUbiquitin ligaseIsothermal titration calorimetryChemistryUbiquitin-Protein LigasesBiochemistryDNA ligaseProtein structureBiophysicsBiologyDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EDD (or HYD) is an E3 ubiquitin ligase in the family of HECT (homologous to E6-AP C terminus) ligases. EDD contains an N-terminal ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domain, which is present in a variety of proteins involved in ubiquitin-mediated processes. Here, we use isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), NMR titrations, and pull-down assays to show that the EDD UBA domain binds ubiquitin. The 1.85 A crystal structure of the complex with ubiquitin reveals the structural basis of ubiquitin recognition by UBA helices alpha1 and alpha3. The structure shows a larger number of intermolecular hydrogen bonds than observed in previous UBA/ubiquitin complexes. Two of these involve ordered water molecules. The functional importance of residues at the UBA/ubiquitin interface was confirmed using site-directed mutagenesis. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) measurements show that the EDD UBA domain does not have a strong preference for polyubiquitin chains over monoubiquitin. This suggests that EDD binds to monoubiquitinated proteins, which is consistent with its involvement in DNA damage repair pathways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations73
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysFrench-language works237,207