MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033683900 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m401867200

Dephosphorylation of RNA Polymerase I by Fcp1p Is Required for Efficient rRNA Synthesis

2004· article· en· W2033683900 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Fath, Michael S. Kobor, Anja Philippi, Jack Greenblatt, Herbert Tschochner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNA polymerase IITranscription factor II FTranscription factor II DTranscription (linguistics)RNA polymerase II holoenzymeRNA polymerase ITranscription factor II BRNA polymerase IIITranscription factor II EGeneral transcription factorMolecular biologyBiologyRNA polymeraseCell biologyRNAPromoterBiochemistryGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differently phosphorylated forms of RNA polymerase (Pol) II are required to guide the enzyme through the transcription cycle. Here, we show that a phosphorylation/dephosphorylation cycle is also important for RNA polymerase I-dependent synthesis of rRNA precursors. A key component of the Pol II transcription system is Fcp1p, a phosphatase that dephosphorylates the C-terminal domain of the largest Pol II subunit. Fcp1p stimulates transcription elongation and is required for Pol II recycling after transcription termination. We found that Fcp1p is also part of the RNA Pol I transcription apparatus. Fcp1p is required for efficient rDNA transcription in vivo, and also, recombinant Fcp1p stimulates rRNA synthesis both in promoter-dependent and in nonspecific transcription assays in vitro. We demonstrate that Fcp1 activity is not involved in the formation of the initiation-active form of Pol I (the Pol I-Rrn3p complex) and propose that dephosphorylation of Pol I by Fcp1p facilitates chain elongation during rRNA synthesis.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
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

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207