Chaperone Proteins Select and Maintain [PIN+] Prion Conformations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prions are proteins that can adopt different infectious conformations known as "strains" or "variants," each with a distinct, epigenetically inheritable phenotype. Mechanisms by which prion variants are determined remain unclear. Here we use the Saccharomyces cerevisiae prion Rnq1p/[ PIN + ] as a model to investigate the effects of chaperone proteins upon prion variant determination. We show that deletion of specific chaperone genes alters [ PIN + ] variant phenotypes, including [ PSI + ] induction efficiency, Rnq1p aggregate morphology/size and variant dominance. Mating assays demonstrate that gene deletion-induced phenotypic changes are stably inherited in a non-Mendelian manner even after restoration of the deleted gene, confirming that they are due to a bona fide change in the [ PIN + ] variant. Together, our results demonstrate a role for chaperones in regulating the prion variant complement of a cell. Background: Prion proteins adopt different conformations, known as variants, each with a distinct phenotype. Results: Deletion of specific chaperone genes ( HSC82 , AHA1 , CPR6 , CPR7 , SBA1 , TAH1 , SSE1 ) alters established [ PIN + ] variants in S. cerevisiae . Conclusion: Chaperone proteins have a role in determining prion variants. Significance: Chaperone activity helps to regulate cell prion phenotype.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".