MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038784177 · doi:10.1021/bi901131u

Ring1B Contains a Ubiquitin-Like Docking Module for Interaction with Cbx Proteins<sup>,</sup>

2009· article· en· W2038784177 on OpenAlexafffund
Irina Bezsonova, John R. Walker, J.P. Bacik, Shili Duan, Sirano Dhe‐Paganon, C.H. Arrowsmith

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsChromatinPRC2NucleosomeCell biologyUbiquitinHistoneBiologyChemistryEpigeneticsGeneticsHistone H3Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are a special set of repressive transcription factors involved in epigenetic modifications of chromatin. They form two functionally distinct groups of catalytically active complexes: Polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1) and 2 (PRC2). The PRC1 complex is an important yet poorly characterized multiprotein histone ubiquitylation machine responsible for maintaining transcriptionally silent states of genes through histone H2A K119 modification. The Ring domain containing subunits of PRC1 also have substrate-targeting domains that interact with Cbx proteins, which have been implicated in chromatin and RNA binding. In this work, we present a high resolution structure of the C-terminal domain of Ring1B, revealing a variant ubiquitin-like fold with a distinct conserved surface region. On the basis of crystal structure and mutational analysis of this domain we show that the conserved surface is responsible for interaction with Cbx members of the PRC1 and homodimer formation. These data suggest a mechanism by which Ring1B serves as an adaptor that mediates binding between the members of the PRC1 complex and the nucleosome.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207