MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128349391 · doi:10.1534/genetics.104.036103

Meiosis-Specific Regulation of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae S-Phase Cyclin CLB5 Is Dependent on MluI Cell Cycle Box (MCB) Elements in Its Promoter but Is Independent of MCB-Binding Factor Activity

2005· article· en· W2128349391 on OpenAlexaff
Sheetal A. Raithatha

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsMeiosisDNA replicationCell cycleSaccharomyces cerevisiaeGeneCyclinTranscription factorCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In proliferating S. cerevisiae, genes whose products function in DNA replication are regulated by the MBF transcription factor composed of Mbp1 and Swi6 that binds to consensus MCB sequences in target promoters. We find that during meiotic development a subset of DNA replication genes exemplified by TMP1 and RNR1 are regulated by Mbp1. Deletion of Mbp1 deregulated TMP1 and RNR1 but did not interfere with premeiotic S-phase, meiotic recombination, or spore formation. Surprisingly, deletion of MBP1 had no effect on the expression of CLB5, which is purportedly controlled by MBF. Extensive analysis of the CLB5 promoter revealed that the gene is largely regulated by elements within a 100-bp fragment containing a cluster of MCB sequences. Surprisingly, induction of the CLB5 promoter requires MCB sequences, but not Mbp1, implying that another MCB-binding factor may exist in cells undergoing meiosis. In addition, full activation of CLB5 during meiosis requires Clb5 activity, suggesting that CLB5 may be regulated by a positive feedback mechanism. We further demonstrate that during meiosis MCBs function as effective transcriptional activators independent of MBP1.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207