MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094782385 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq002

Structure of the Rna15 RRM–RNA complex reveals the molecular basis of GU specificity in transcriptional 3′-end processing factors

2010· article· en· W2094782385 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christina Pancevac, David C. Goldstone, Andres Ramos, Ian A. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsPolyadenylationBiologyCleavage and polyadenylation specificity factorRNARNA recognition motifPost-transcriptional modificationGeneticsCleavage (geology)Saccharomyces cerevisiaeCleavage factorMolecular biologyRNA-binding proteinCell biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rna15 is a core subunit of cleavage factor IA (CFIA), an essential transcriptional 3'-end processing factor from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. CFIA is required for polyA site selection/cleavage targeting RNA sequences that surround polyadenylation sites in the 3'-UTR of RNA polymerase-II transcripts. RNA recognition by CFIA is mediated by an RNA recognition motif (RRM) contained in the Rna15 subunit of the complex. We show here that Rna15 has a strong and unexpected preference for GU containing RNAs and reveal the molecular basis for a base selectivity mechanism that accommodates G or U but discriminates against C and A bases. This mode of base selectivity is rather different to that observed in other RRM-RNA structures and is structurally conserved in CstF64, the mammalian counterpart of Rna15. Our observations provide evidence for a highly conserved mechanism of base recognition amongst the 3'-end processing complexes that interact with the U-rich or U/G-rich elements at 3'-end cleavage/polyadenylation sites.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations58
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207