MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020162055 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m101932200

Characterization of Recombinant HPV6 and 11 E1 Helicases

2001· article· en· W2020162055 on OpenAlexaff
Peter W. White, Alex Pelletier, Karine Brault, Steve Titolo, Ewald Welchner, Louise Thauvette, Monika Fazekas, Michael G. Cordingley, Jacques Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelicaseATP hydrolysisdnaB helicaseDNATransactivationAmino acidRecombinant DNABiologyEnzymeBiochemistryATPaseDNA replicationDNA-binding domainMutantBovine papillomavirusChemistryMolecular biologyGeneGene expressionTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better characterize the enzymatic activities required for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA replication, the E1 helicases of HPV types 6 and 11 were produced using a baculovirus expression system. The purified wild type proteins and a version of HPV11 E1 lacking the N-terminal 71 amino acids, which was better expressed, were found to be hexameric over a wide range of concentrations and to have helicase and ATPase activities with relatively low values for K(m)(ATP) of 12 microm for HPV6 E1 and 6 microm for HPV11 E1. Interestingly, the value of K(m)(ATP) was increased 7-fold in the presence of the E2 transactivation domain. In turn, ATP was found to perturb the co-operative binding of E1 and E2 to DNA. Mutant and truncated versions of in vitro translated E1 were used to identify a minimal ATPase domain composed of the C-terminal 297 amino acids. This fragment was expressed, purified, and found to be fully active in ATP hydrolysis, single-stranded DNA binding, and unwinding assays, despite lacking the minimal origin-binding domain.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations58
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207