Proteomic comparison between interphase and metaphase of isolated chloroplasts of <i>Cyanidioschyzon merolae</i> (Cyanidiophyceae, Rhodophyta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY With the completion of the Cyanidioschyzon merolae genome project, detailed analysis of organelle proteins with mass spectrometry has now become possible. Chloroplasts of the unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae De Luca, Taddei et Varano (Rhodophyta, Cyanidiophyceae) were isolated from synchronized culture and the chloroplast lysates of both interphase and metaphase cells were prepared and subjected to 2D‐polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. A total of 355 spots (170 identical spots) were recognized and quantified and then analyzed using mass spectrometry. A total of 105 proteins were identified, including 18 proteins for posttranslational functions, 17 photosynthesis‐related proteins, 10 carbohydrate‐related proteins, 15 proteins of unknown functions, and eight proteins predicted to be contaminated from other organelles. On the basis of spot quantity, photosynthesis‐related proteins were most dominant (45.3% in interphase and 56.4% in metaphase). In particular, the proteins forming phycobilisomal complexes were abundant. Comparison of interphase with metaphase revealed that CMG086C (aminomethyltransferase) notably increased in interphase. CMN235C (similar to chlorophyll a/b‐binding protein, CP24) increased in metaphase in agreement with a previously performed microarray analysis. Both CMQ295C (cell division protein FtsH) and CMS004C (plastid division protein FtsZ) increased in interphase. Seven proteins were detected to be interphase‐specific, and 12 proteins were metaphase‐specific. Proteins of unknown functions were poorly characterized by homology search, although thioredoxin‐like domains were predicted in several proteins.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".