MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050920173 · doi:10.1134/s0026893306040133

Translational control by the poly(A) binding protein: A check for mRNA integrity

2006· article· en· W2050920173 on OpenAlexaff
Yuri V. Svitkin, Nahum Sonenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMessenger RNAPoly(A)-binding proteinCell biologyChemistryTranslational regulationComputational biologyTranslation (biology)BiologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eukaryotic mRNA 3' poly(A) tail and the 5' cap cooperate to synergistically enhance translation. This interaction is mediated by a ribonucleoprotein network that contains, at a minimum, the poly(A) binding protein (PABP), the capbinding protein eIF4E and a scaffolding protein, eIF4G. eIF4G, in turn, contains binding sites for eIF4A and eIF3, a 40S ribosome-associated initiation factor. The combined cooperative interactions within this "closed loop" mRNP among other effects enhance the affinity of eIF4E for the 5' cap by lowering its dissociation rate and, ultimately, facilitate the formation of 48S and 80S ribosome initiation complexes. The PABP-poly(A) interaction also stimulates initiation driven by picomavirus' internal ribosomal entry sites (IRESs), a process that requires eIF4G but not eIF4E. PABP, therefore, should be considered a canonical initiation factor, integral to initiation complex formation. Poly(A)-mediated translation is subjected to regulation by the PABP-interacting proteins Paip1 and Paip2. Paip1 acts as a translational enhancer. In contrast, Paip2 strongly inhibits translation by promoting dissociation of PABP from poly(A) and by competing with eIF4G for binding to PABP.

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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207