Molecular evolution of protein-RNA mimicry as a mechanism for translational control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elongation factor P (EF-P) is a conserved ribosome-binding protein that structurally mimics tRNA to enable the synthesis of peptides containing motifs that otherwise would induce translational stalling, including polyproline. In many bacteria, EF-P function requires post-translational modification with (R)-β-lysine by the lysyl-tRNA synthetase paralog PoxA. To investigate how recognition of EF-P by PoxA evolved from tRNA recognition by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, we compared the roles of EF-P/PoxA polar contacts with analogous interactions in a closely related tRNA/synthetase complex. PoxA was found to recognize EF-P solely via identity elements in the acceptor loop, the domain of the protein that interacts with the ribosome peptidyl transferase center and mimics the 3'-acceptor stem of tRNA. Although the EF-P acceptor loop residues required for PoxA recognition are highly conserved, their conservation was found to be independent of the phylogenetic distribution of PoxA. This suggests EF-P first evolved tRNA mimicry to optimize interactions with the ribosome, with PoxA-catalyzed aminoacylation evolving later as a secondary mechanism to further improve ribosome binding and translation control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".