The Drosophila Bruno paralogue Bru-3 specifically binds the EDEN translational repression element
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reported in our previous work that the EDEN-dependent translational repression of maternal mRNAs was conserved between Drosophila and Xenopus. In Xenopus, this repression is achieved through the binding of EDEN to the Bruno-like factor, EDEN-BP. We show in the present work that the Drosophila Bruno paralogue, the 45 kDa Bru-3 protein (p45), binds specifically to the EDEN element and acts as a homodimer. We describe for the first time a previously undetected 67 amino acid domain, found in the divergent linker region, the lsm domain (lsm stands for linker-specific motif). We propose that the presence of this domain in a subset of the Bruno-like proteins, including Bru-3, EDEN-BP and CUG-BP but not Bruno nor its other paralogue Bru-2, might be responsible for specific RNA recognition. Interestingly, comparative structural analyses using threaders and molecular modelling suggest that the new domain might be distantly related to the first RNA recognition motif of the Drosophila sex-lethal protein (sxl). The phylogenetic analyses and the experimental data based on its specific binding to the EDEN element support the conclusion that Bru-3 is an EDEN-BP/CUG-BP orthologue.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".