Transcription pattern of ribosomal protein L26 during anoxia exposure in <i>Littorina littorea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential screening of a hepatopancreas cDNA library derived from the marine snail Littorina littorea yielded a 421-bp clone coding for ribosomal protein L26 that was up-regulated during anoxia exposure. The deduced amino acid sequence, containing 144 residues with a predicted molecular weight of 17 kDa, showed 80% amino acid sequence identity to the mammalian ribosomal protein L26. Analysis of hepatopancreas and foot muscle samples from a time course of anoxia exposure showed a maximal transcript increase of 4- and 3-fold after 96 hr and 48 hr, respectively, relative to normoxic animals, with a subsequent decrease in transcript levels during normoxic recovery. Nuclear run-off assays confirmed the observed transcriptional up-regulation of L26 during anoxia. Organ culture experiments were performed to determine a possible pathway of up-regulation of L26, with data indicating a putative role for cGMP in signal transduction. The transcriptional up-regulation of L26 during anoxia may stabilize the existing mRNA pool, via a possible cGMP-mediated signaling cascade, until oxygen reappears and protein synthesis resumes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".