MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004435014 · doi:10.1042/bj20070811

The N-terminal region of ABC50 interacts with eukaryotic initiation factor eIF2 and is a target for regulatory phosphorylation by CK2

2007· article· en· W2004435014 on OpenAlexaff
Sònia Paytubi, Nicholas A. Morrice, Jérôme Boudeau, Christopher G. Proud

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordseIF2RibosomeBiologyEukaryotic initiation factorPhosphoproteinEukaryotic translationEukaryotic translation initiation factor 4 gammaInitiation factorCell biologyEIF4A1BiochemistryTranslation (biology)PhosphorylationRNAMessenger RNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABC50 is an ABC (ATP-binding cassette) protein which, unlike most ABC proteins, lacks membrane-spanning domains. ABC50 interacts with eIF2 (eukaryotic initiation factor 2), a protein that plays a key role in translation initiation and in its control, and in regulation of ribosomes. Here, we establish that the interaction of ABC50 with eIF2 involves features in the N-terminal domain of ABC50, the region of ABC50 that differs most markedly from other ABC proteins. This region also shows no apparent similarity to the eIF2-binding domains of other partners of eIF2. In contrast, the N-terminus of ABC50 cannot bind to ribosomes by itself, but it can in conjunction with one of the nucleotide-binding domains. We demonstrate that ABC50 is a phosphoprotein and is phosphorylated at two sites by CK2. These sites, Ser-109 and Ser-140, lie in the N-terminal part of ABC50 but are not required for the binding of ABC50 to eIF2. Expression of a mutant of ABC50 in which both sites are mutated to alanine markedly decreased the association of eIF2 with 80S ribosomal and polysomal fractions.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations43
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical JournalSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207