MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computational and experimental analysis reveals a novel Src family kinase in the C. elegans genome

2003· article· en· W2112034631 on OpenAlexaff
Akhilesh Pandey, Suraj Peri, Colin Thacker, Chery A. Whipple, John J. Collins, Matthias Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase SrcGeneGeneticsGene familyOpen reading frameGenomeSequence analysisCoding regionPhylogenetic treeMyristoylationConserved sequenceKinaseComputational biologyPeptide sequencePhosphorylation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: The complete genomes of a number of organisms have already been sequenced. However, the vast majority of annotated genes are derived by gene prediction methods. It is important to not only validate the predicted coding regions but also to identify genes that may have been missed by these programs. METHODS: We searched the entire C.elegans genomic sequence database maintained by the Sanger Center using human c-Src sequence in a TBLASN search. We have confirmed one of the predicted regions by isolation of a cDNA and carried out a phylogenetic analysis of Src kinase family members in the worm, fly and several vertebrate species. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a novel tyrosine kinase in the C.elegans genome that contains functional features typical of the Src family kinases that we have designated as Src-1. The open reading frame contains a conserved N-terminal myristoylation site and a tyrosine residue within the C-terminus that is crucial for regulating the activity of Src kinases. Our phylogenetic analysis of Src family members from C. elegans, Drosophila and other higher organisms revealed a relationship among Src kinases from C. elegans and Drosophila.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207