MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023590512 · doi:10.1083/jcb.200107041

The role of cell cycle–regulated expression in the localization of spatial landmark proteins in yeast

2002· article· en· W2023590512 on OpenAlexaff
Laura R. Schenkman, Carlo Caruso, Nicolas Pagé, John R. Pringle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsCell biologyCytokinesisSeptinBiologyCell cycleSaccharomyces cerevisiaeMitosisTranscription (linguistics)BuddingMutantCell divisionGeneticsCellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bud8p and Bud9p are homologous plasma membrane glycoproteins that appear to mark the distal and proximal cell poles, respectively, as potential sites for budding in the bipolar pattern. Here we provide evidence that Bud8p is delivered to the presumptive bud site (and thence to the distal pole of the bud) just before bud emergence, and that Bud9p is delivered to the bud side of the mother-bud neck (and thence to the proximal pole of the daughter cell) after activation of the mitotic exit network, just before cytokinesis. Like the delivery of Bud8p, that of Bud9p is actin dependent; unlike the delivery of Bud8p, that of Bud9p is also septin dependent. Interestingly, although the transcription of BUD8 and BUD9 appears to be cell cycle regulated, the abundance of BUD8 mRNA peaks in G2/M and that of BUD9 mRNA peaks in late G1, suggesting that the translation and/or delivery to the cell surface of each protein is delayed and presumably also cell cycle regulated. The importance of time of transcription in localization is supported by promoter-swap experiments: expression of Bud8p from the BUD9 promoter leads to its localization predominantly to the sites typical for Bud9p, and vice versa. Moreover, expression of Bud8p from the BUD9 promoter fails to rescue the budding-pattern defect of a bud8 mutant but fully rescues that of a bud9 mutant. However, although expression of Bud9p from the BUD8 promoter fails to rescue a bud9 mutant, it also rescues only partially the budding-pattern defect of a bud8 mutant, suggesting that some feature(s) of the Bud8p protein is also important for Bud8p function. Experiments with chimeric proteins suggest that the critical element(s) is somewhere in the extracytoplasmic domain of Bud8p.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations71
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207