The Oligonucleotide Binding (OB)-Fold Domain of KREPA4 Is Essential for Stable Incorporation into Editosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most mitochondrial mRNAs in trypanosomatid parasites require uridine insertion/deletion RNA editing, a process mediated by guide RNA (gRNA) and catalyzed by multi-protein complexes called editosomes. The six oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide binding (OB)-fold proteins (KREPA1-A6), are a part of the common core of editosomes. They form a network of interactions among themselves as well as with the insertion and deletion sub-complexes and are essential for the stability of the editosomes. KREPA4 and KREPA6 proteins bind gRNA in vitro and are known to interact directly in yeast two-hybrid analysis. In this study, using several approaches we show a minimal interaction surface of the KREPA4 protein that is required for this interaction. By screening a series of N- and C-terminally truncated KREPA4 fragments, we show that a predicted α-helix of KREPA4 OB-fold is required for its interaction with KREPA6. An antibody against the KREPA4 α-helix or mutations of this region can eliminate association with KREPA6; while a peptide fragment corresponding to the α-helix can independently interact with KREPA6, thereby supporting the identification of KREPA4-KREPA6 interface. We also show that the predicted OB-fold of KREPA4; independent of its interaction with gRNA, is responsible for the stable integration of KREPA4 in the editosomes, and editing complexes co-purified with the tagged OB-fold can catalyze RNA editing. Therefore, we conclude that while KREPA4 interacts with KREPA6 through the α-helix region of its OB-fold, the entire OB-fold is required for its integration in the functional editosome, through additional protein-protein interactions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".