MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100654519 · doi:10.1128/ec.3.2.288-301.2004

Role of Micronucleus-Limited DNA in Programmed Deletion of mse2.9 during Macronuclear Development of <i>Tetrahymena thermophila</i>

2004· article· en· W2100654519 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Fillingham, Ronald E. Pearlman

Bibliographic record

VenueEukaryotic Cell · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchYork University
KeywordsMacronucleusTetrahymenaBiologyGeneticsDNAMicronucleusGeneMolecular biologyCell biologyMicronucleus test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive programmed DNA rearrangements occur during the development of the somatic macronucleus from the germ line micronucleus in the sexual cycle of the ciliated protozoan Tetrahymena thermophila. Using an in vivo processing assay, we analyzed the role of micronucleus-limited DNA during the programmed deletion of mse2.9, an internal eliminated sequence (IES). We identified a 200-bp region within mse2.9 that contains an important cis-acting element which is required for the targeting of efficient programmed deletion. Our results, obtained with a series of mse2.9-based chimeric IESs, led us to suggest that the cis-acting elements in both micronucleus-limited and macronucleus-retained flanking DNAs stimulate programmed deletion to different degrees depending on the particular eliminated sequence. The mse2.9 IES is situated within the second intron of the micronuclear locus of the ARP1 gene. We show that the expression of ARP1 is not essential for the growth of Tetrahymena. Our results also suggest that mse2.9 is not subject to epigenetic regulation of DNA deletion, placing possible constraints on the scan RNA model of IES excision.

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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEukaryotic CellSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207