MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116803802 · doi:10.1128/jvi.01348-09

The Rubella Virus Capsid Protein Inhibits Mitochondrial Import

2009· article· en· W2116803802 on OpenAlexafffund
Carolina S. Ilkow, Daniel Weckbecker, Woo Jung Cho, Stephan Meier, Martin D. Beatch, Ing Swie Goping, Johannes M. Herrmann, Tom C. Hobman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of AlbertaCancer Research Institute
KeywordsCapsidBiologyMitochondrionRubella virusCell biologyVirusMolecular biologyVirologyRubella

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rubella virus (RV) capsid is an RNA-binding protein that functions in nucleocapsid assembly at the Golgi complex, the site of virus budding. In addition to its role in virus assembly, pools of capsid associate with mitochondria, a localization that is not consistent with virus assembly. Here we examined the interaction of capsid with mitochondria and showed that this viral protein inhibits the import and processing of mitochondrial precursor proteins in vitro. Moreover, RV-infected cells were found to contain lower intramitochondrial levels of matrix protein p32. In addition to inhibiting the translocation of substrates into mammalian mitochondria, capsid efficiently blocked import into yeast mitochondria, thereby suggesting that it acts by targeting a highly conserved component of the translocation apparatus. Finally, mutation of a cluster of five arginine residues in the amino terminus of capsid, though not interfering with its binding to mitochondria, abrogated its ability to block protein import into mitochondria. This is the first report of a viral protein that affects the import of proteins into mitochondria.

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 score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207