MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022000964 · doi:10.5483/bmbrep.2006.39.6.782

Characterization of Choristoneura fumiferana Genes of the Sixth Subunit of the Origin Recognition Complex: CfORC6

2006· article· en· W2022000964 on OpenAlexafffund
Xaiochun Wang, Eric B. Carstens, Qili Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMB Reports · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChoristoneura fumiferanaWestern blotSpruce budwormProtein subunitNorthern blotGeneBiologySouthern blotMolecular biologyGene expressionGeneticsBotanyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new protein was cloned and identified as the sixth subunit of Choristoneura fumiferana origin recognition complex (CfORC6). The newly identified 43 kDa protein CfORC6 is much bigger than DmORC6 (25.7 kDa) and HsORC6 (28.1 kDa), though itos 23.85% identical to DmORC6 and 23.81% identical to HsORC6. Although the molecular weight of CfORC6 is close to ScORc6 (50 kDa), CfORC6 is only 14.03% identical to ScORC6. By alignment, it was found that the N-terminal of CfORC6 has about 30% identities with other ORC6s, but about 100aa of C-terminal of CfORC6 has no identity with other ORC6s. Like ScORC6, CfORC6 has many potential phosphorylation sites, (S/T)PXK. Like DmORC6, CfORC6 has leucine-rich region in the relevant site. Northern Blot showed that CfORC6 mRNA is about 2,000nt. Southern Blot confirmed that there is one copy of CfORC6 gene in spruce budworm genome. Western blot showed that infection of Cf124T cells with CfMNPV didnot affect the expression levels of CfORC6, at least up to 26 hr post infection.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMB ReportsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207