MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102158431 · doi:10.1261/rna.955508

<i>S. cerevisiae</i> Vts1p induces deadenylation-dependent transcript degradation and interacts with the Ccr4p-Pop2p-Not deadenylase complex

2008· article· en· W2102158431 on OpenAlexaff
Laura M. Rendl, Melissa A. Bieman, Craig A. Smibert

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeCell biologyDegradation (telecommunications)GeneticsComputational biologyYeast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Smaug family of sequence-specific RNA binding proteins regulates mRNA translation and degradation by binding to consensus stem-loop structures in target mRNAs. Vts1p is a member of the Smaug protein family that regulates the stability of target transcripts in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here we focus on the mechanism of Vts1p-mediated mRNA decay. Using RNA reporters that recapitulate Vts1p-mediated decay in vivo, we demonstrate that Vts1p stimulates mRNA degradation through deadenylation mediated by the Ccr4p-Pop2p-Not deadenylase complex. We also show that Vts1p interacts with the Ccr4p-Pop2p-Not complex suggesting that Vts1p recruits the Ccr4p-Pop2p-Not deadenylase complex to target mRNAs, resulting in transcript decay. Following deadenylation Vts1p target transcripts are decapped and subsequently degraded by the 5'-to-3' exonuclease Xrn1p. Decapping and 5'-to-3' decay is thought to occur in foci known as P-bodies, and we provide evidence that Vts1p function may involve P-bodies. Taken together with previous work, these data suggest that Smaug family members employ a conserved mechanism to induce transcript degradation that involves recruitment of the Ccr4-Pop2-Not deadenylase to target mRNAs.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNASame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207