Translational control by the poly(A) binding protein: A check for mRNA integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".