C2ORF29/CNOT11 and CNOT10 form a new module of the CCR4-NOT complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CCR4-NOT complex was originally identified and its composition and organization characterized in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It was first suggested to participate in transcription regulation, but since then it has become clear that it plays a key role in mRNA decay in all eukaryotes, thereby contributing importantly to gene expression regulation. Hence, the mammalian CCR4-NOT complex was recently shown to participate in miRNA-mediated mRNA repression. A better characterization of the composition and organization of this complex in higher eukaryotes is thus warranted. Purifications of the CCR4-NOT complex, performed by others and us, suggest that the protein of unknown function C2ORF29 is associated with this assembly. We demonstrate here that C2ORF29 is indeed a bona fide subunit of the human CCR4-NOT complex and propose to rename it CNOT11. In addition, we show that CNOT11 interacts with the first amino acids of CNOT1 and with CNOT10 and is required for the association of CNOT10 with the CCR4-NOT complex. Thus, the human CCR4-NOT complex possesses in addition to the CCR4-CAF1 deadenylase module and to the NOT module, a module composed of CNOT10 and CNOT11 that interacts with the N-terminal part of CNOT1. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that the CNOT10/CNOT11 module is conserved in all eukaryotes except fungi.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".