MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094729320 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m401221200

The Specificities of Four Yeast Dihydrouridine Synthases for Cytoplasmic tRNAs

2004· article· en· W2094729320 on OpenAlexafffund
Feng Xing, Shawna L. Hiley, Timothy R. Hughes, Eric M. Phizicky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Miami
KeywordsCytoplasmYeastTransfer RNACell biologyBiologyBiochemistryChemistryRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dihydrouridine is a highly abundant modified nucleoside found widely in tRNAs of eubacteria, eukaryotes, and some archaea. In cytoplasmic tRNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, dihydrouridine occurs exclusively at positions 16, 17, 20, 20A, 20B, and 47. Here we show that the known dihydrouridine synthases Dus1p and Dus2p and two previously uncharacterized homologs, Dus3p (encoded by YLR401c) and Dus4p (YLR405w), are required for all of the dihydrouridine modification of cytoplasmic tRNAs in S. cerevisiae. We have mapped the in vivo position specificity of the four Dus proteins, by three complementary approaches: determination of the molar ratio of dihydrouridine in purified tRNAs from different dus mutants; microarray analysis of a large number of tRNAs based on differential hybridization of uridine and dihydrouridine-containing tRNAs to the complementary oligonucleotides; and the development and use of a novel dihydrouridine mapping technique, employing primer extension. We show that each of the four Dus proteins has a distinct position specificity: Dus1p for U(16) and U(17), Dus2p for U(20), Dus3p for U(47), and Dus4p for U(20a) and U(20b).

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations114
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207