MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140986784 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.065

The eIF4E-Binding Protein 4E-T Is a Component of the mRNA Decay Machinery that Bridges the 5′ and 3′ Termini of Target mRNAs

2015· article· en· W2140986784 on OpenAlexafffund
Tamiko Nishimura, Zoya Padamsi, Hana Fakim, Simon Milette, Wade H. Dunham, Anne‐Claude Gingras, Marc R. Fabian

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsP-bodiesMessenger RNAEIF4ENonsense-mediated decayCell biologyBiologyTranslation (biology)microRNARNAMolecular biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eukaryotic mRNA degradation often initiates with the recruitment of the CCR4-NOT deadenylase complex and decay factors to the mRNA 3' terminus. How the 3'-proximal decay machinery interacts with the 5'-terminal cap structure in order to engender mRNA decapping and 5'-3' degradation is unclear. Human 4E-T is an eIF4E-binding protein that has been reported to promote mRNA decay, albeit via an unknown mechanism. Here, we show that 4E-T is a component of the mRNA decay machinery and interacts with factors including DDX6, LSM14, and the LSM1-7-PAT1 complex. We also provide evidence that 4E-T associates with, and enhances the decay of, mRNAs targeted by the CCR4-NOT deadenylase complex, including microRNA targets. Importantly, we demonstrate that 4E-T must interact with eIF4E to engender mRNA decay. Taken together, our data support a model where 4E-T promotes mRNA turnover by physically linking the 3'-terminal mRNA decay machinery to the 5' cap via its interaction with eIF4E.

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)0.001
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 score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207