MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103006829 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq122

LOTUS, a new domain associated with small RNA pathways in the germline

2010· article· en· W2103006829 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Isabelle Callebaut, Jean‐Paul Mornon

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversité Pierre et Marie CurieInstitut National Du CancerCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsPiwi-interacting RNABiologyGermlineArgonauteGeneticsGerm plasmLotus japonicusLotusRasiRNARNA interferenceRNA-binding proteinGerm cellRNAComputational biologyCell biologyGeneEmbryoMutantBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe here LOTUS, a hitherto uncharacterized small globular domain, which was identified using sensitive sequence profile analysis. The LOTUS domain is found in germline-specific proteins that are present in the nuage/polar granules of germ cells. TDRD5 and TDRD7, two mammalian members of the germline Tudor group, possess three copies of the LOTUS domain in their extreme N-termini. The Tudor domains of these proteins bind symmetric dimethyl arginines present on the germ cell-specific Piwi proteins, which form a particular clade of Argonaute proteins. Piwi proteins interact with a specific class of non-coding RNAs [piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs)] and play a key role in the repression (silencing) of transposons and possibly other germline-specific functions. A LOTUS domain is also present in the Oskar protein, a critical component of the pole plasm in the Drosophila oocyte, which is required for germ cell formation. LOTUS domains are found in various proteins from metazoans and plants, are often associated with RNA-specific modules and are likely to adopt a winged helix fold. This suggests a germline-specific role in the mRNA localization and/or translation or a specific function toward piRNAs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations79
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207