MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049359175 · doi:10.1107/s1744309112036937

Structure of the HECT C-lobe of the UBR5 E3 ubiquitin ligase

2012· article· en· W2049359175 on OpenAlexaff
Edna Matta‐Camacho, Guennadi Kozlov, Marie Ménade, Kalle Gehring

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUbiquitinUbiquitin ligaseDNA ligaseUbiquitin-Protein LigasesChemistryLinkerBiochemistryCell biologyNEDD4Ubiquitin-conjugating enzymeDeubiquitinating enzymeBiologyEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UBR5 ubiquitin ligase (also known as EDD, Rat100 or hHYD) is a member of the E3 protein family of HECT (homologous to E6-AP C-terminus) ligases as it contains a C-terminal HECT domain. In ubiquitination cascades involving E3s of the HECT class, ubiquitin is transferred from an associated E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme to the acceptor cysteine of the HECT domain, which consists of structurally distinct N- and C-lobes connected by a flexible linker. Here, the high-resolution crystal structure of the C-lobe of the HECT domain of human UBR5 is presented. The structure reveals important features that are unique compared with other HECT domains. In particular, a distinct four-residue insert in the second helix elongates this helix, resulting in a strikingly different orientation of the preceding loop. This protruding loop is likely to contribute to specificity towards the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme UBCH4, which is an important functional partner of UBR5. Ubiquitination assays showed that the C-lobe of UBR5 is able to form a thioester-linked E3-ubiquitin complex, although it does not physically interact with UBCH4 in NMR experiments. This study contributes to a better understanding of UBR5 ubiquitination activity.

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 score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization CommunicationsSame topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysFrench-language works237,207