MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001209142 · doi:10.1021/bi701274s

Characterization of the PL-I-Related SP2 Protein from <i>Xenopus</i>

2007· article· en· W2001209142 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay J. Frehlick, Adelina Prado, Alison Calestagne-Morelli, Juan Ausió

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenopusHistoneCircular dichroismNucleosomeBiologyCleavage (geology)Histone H1Protein secondary structureDNA supercoilComplementary DNAProtein tertiary structureDNAProtein primary structurePeptideChemistryPeptide sequenceBiochemistryDNA replicationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complete cDNA sequence of Xenopus laevis sperm specific proteins SP1 and SP2 has been determined. This information when taken together with N-terminal sequencing and mass spectroscopy data indicates that these two proteins share a product precursor relationship in which SP2 results from cleavage of a short N-terminal peptide of SP1. The secondary and tertiary structures of SP2 have been characterized using circular dichroism and three dimension structure prediction. These structural analyses have conclusively shown that SP1/SP2 proteins are related to proteins of the histone H1 family, particularly to vertebrate histone H1x. Hence, they can be considered bona fide members of the protamine-like- I (PL-I) group of sperm nuclear basic proteins (SNBPs) that have been described in other vertebrate and invertebrate groups. SP2 binds to nucleosomal DNA in a way that is very similar to that of histone H1. However, its interaction with circular DNA does not exhibit an enhanced preference for the supercoiled conformation, and it appears to be mainly driven by ionic interactions.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207