MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032623135 · doi:10.1042/bj20031176

Characterization of the Drosophila protein arginine methyltransferases DART1 and DART4

2004· article· en· W2032623135 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Chloé Boulanger, Tina Branscombe Miranda, Steven Clarke, Marco Di Fruscio, Beat Suter, Paul Lasko, Stéphane Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsProtein arginine methyltransferase 5MethyltransferaseArginineMethylationDrosophila melanogasterBiologyBiochemistryGeneticsHistone methyltransferaseHistoneAmino acidGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of arginine methylation in Drosophila melanogaster is unknown. We identified a family of nine PRMTs (protein arginine methyltransferases) by sequence homology with mammalian arginine methyltransferases, which we have named DART1 to DART9 ( Drosophila arginine methyltransferases 1-9). In keeping with the mammalian PRMT nomenclature, DART1, DART4, DART5 and DART7 are the putative homologues of PRMT1, PRMT4, PRMT5 and PRMT7. Other DART family members have a closer resemblance to PRMT1, but do not have identifiable homologues. All nine genes are expressed in Drosophila at various developmental stages. DART1 and DART4 have arginine methyltransferase activity towards substrates, including histones and RNA-binding proteins. Amino acid analysis of the methylated arginine residues confirmed that both DART1 and DART4 catalyse the formation of asymmetrical dimethylated arginine residues and they are type I arginine methyltransferases. The presence of PRMTs in D. melanogaster suggest that flies are a suitable genetic system to study arginine methylation.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical JournalSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207