MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FRET evidence for a conformational change in TFIIB upon TBP‐DNA binding

2004· article· en· W2146897979 on OpenAlexaff
Le Zheng, Klaus P. Hoeflich, Laura M. Elsby, Mahua Ghosh, Stefan G. E. Roberts, Mitsuhiko Ikura

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Biochemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFörster resonance energy transferConformational changeBiophysicsTranscription factor II BDNAChemistryTranscription factor II AComputational biologyBiologyPolymeraseBiochemistryPhysicsFluorescenceGenePromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a critical step of the preinitiation complex assembly in transcription, the general transcription factor TFIIB forms a complex with the TATA-box binding protein (TBP) bound to a promoter element. Transcriptional activators such as the herpes simplex virus VP16 facilitate this complex formation through conformational activation of TFIIB, a focal molecule of transcriptional initiation and activation. Here, we used fluorescence resonance energy transfer to investigate conformational states of human TFIIB fused to enhanced cyan fluorescent protein and enhanced yellow fluorescent protein at its N- and C-terminus, respectively. A significant reduction in fluorescence resonance energy transfer ratio was observed when this fusion protein, hereafter named CYIIB, was mixed with promoter-loaded TBP. The rate for the TFIIB-TBP-DNA complex formation is accelerated drastically by GAL4-VP16 and is also dependent on the type of promoter sequences. These results provide compelling evidence for a 'closed-to-open' conformational change of TFIIB upon binding to the TBP-DNA complex, which probably involves alternation of the spatial orientation between the N-terminal zinc ribbon domain and the C-terminal conserved core domain responsible for direct interactions with TBP and a DNA element.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of BiochemistrySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207