MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shared Roles of Yeast Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3 Family Members in Nitrogen-Responsive Phosphorylation of Meiotic Regulator Ume6p

2000· article· en· W2120690178 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Xiao, Aaron P. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyPhosphorylationGSK-3GSK3BMeiosisSignal transductionActivator (genetics)Cell biologyMutantGeneGlycogen synthaseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrogen limitation activates meiosis and meiotic gene expression in yeast, but nitrogen-responsive signal transduction mechanisms that govern meiotic gene expression are poorly understood. We show here that Ume6p, a subunit of the Ume6p-Ime1p meiotic transcriptional activator, undergoes increased phosphorylation in vivo in response to nitrogen limitation. Phosphorylation depends on an N-terminal glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) target site in which substitutions cause reduced Ume6p-Ime1p interaction and meiotic gene expression, thus arguing that phosphorylation promotes functional Ume6p-Ime1p interaction. Phosphorylation of this site depends on two GSK3 homologs, Rim11p and Mck1p. Prior studies indicate that Rim11p phosphorylates both Ume6p and Ime1p in vitro and is required for Ume6p-Ime1p interaction, but no evidence has linked Mck1p function to Ume6p activity. Here we find that Mck1p-Ume6p interaction is detectable by two-hybrid assays and that meiosis in a partially defective rim11-K68R mutant is completely dependent on Mck1p. These findings argue that nitrogen limitation governs Rim11p/Mck1p-dependent phosphorylation of Ume6p, which in turn is required for Ume6p-Ime1p interaction and meiotic gene activation.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations57
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207