MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paip1 Interacts with Poly(A) Binding Protein through Two Independent Binding Motifs

2002· article· en· W2127720732 on OpenAlexafffund
Guylaine Roy, Grégory De Crescenzo, Kianoush Khaleghpour, Avak Kahvejian, Maureen D. O'Connor‐McCourt, Nahum Sonenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityBiotechnology Research InstituteMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsEIF4GPoly(A)-binding proteinBiologyPolyadenylationPlasma protein bindingBinding siteCell biologyRNA-binding proteinBinding domainMolecular biologyBiochemistryMessenger RNATranslation (biology)Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 3' poly(A) tail of eukaryotic mRNAs plays an important role in the regulation of translation. The poly(A) binding protein (PABP) interacts with eukaryotic initiation factor 4G (eIF4G), a component of the eIF4F complex, which binds to the 5' cap structure. The PABP-eIF4G interaction brings about the circularization of the mRNA by joining its 5' and 3' termini, thereby stimulating mRNA translation. The activity of PABP is regulated by two interacting proteins, Paip1 and Paip2. To study the mechanism of the Paip1-PABP interaction, far-Western, glutathione S-transferase pull-down, and surface plasmon resonance experiments were performed. Paip1 contains two binding sites for PABP, PAM1 and PAM2 (for PABP-interacting motifs 1 and 2). PAM2 consists of a 15-amino-acid stretch residing in the N terminus, and PAM1 encompasses a larger C-terminal acidic-amino-acid-rich region. PABP also contains two Paip1 binding sites, one located in RNA recognition motifs 1 and 2 and the other located in the C-terminal domain. Paip1 binds to PABP with a 1:1 stoichiometry and an apparent K(d) of 1.9 nM.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations144
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207