MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041882533 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m701256200

Poly(A) Nuclease Interacts with the C-terminal Domain of Polyadenylate-binding Protein Domain from Poly(A)-binding Protein

2007· article· en· W2041882533 on OpenAlexaff
Nadeem Siddiqui, David A. Mangus, Tsung-Cheng Chang, Jeanne-Marie Palermino, A B Shyu, Kalle Gehring

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsPoly(A)-binding proteinMessenger RNPRibonucleoproteinBiologyCell biologyMessenger RNARNA-binding proteinTranslation (biology)P-bodiesBiochemistryRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) is an essential protein found in all eukaryotes and is involved in an extensive range of cellular functions, including translation, mRNA metabolism, and mRNA export. Its C-terminal region contains a peptide-interacting PABC domain that recruits proteins containing a highly specific PAM-2 sequence motif to the messenger ribonucleoprotein complex. In humans, these proteins, including Paip1, Paip2, eRF3 (eukaryotic release factor 3), Ataxin-2, and Tob2, are all found to regulate translation through varying mechanisms. The following reports poly(A) nuclease (PAN) as a PABC-interacting partner in both yeast and humans. Their interaction is mediated by a PAM-2 motif identified within the PAN3 subunit. This site was identified in various fungal and animal species suggesting that the interaction is conserved throughout evolution. Our results indicate that PABP is directly involved in recruiting a deadenylase to the messenger ribonucleoprotein complex. This demonstrates a novel role for the PABC domain in mRNA metabolic processes and gives further insight into the function of PABP in mRNA maturation, export, and turnover.

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)0.001
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 score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations90
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207