MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150667753 · doi:10.1093/nar/29.4.960

Rapid evolution of the DNA-binding site in LAGLIDADG homing endonucleases

2001· article· en· W2150667753 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHoming endonucleaseSubfamilyGeneticsDNAIntronRestriction enzymePeptide sequenceSequence motifGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence analysis of chloroplast and mitochondrial large subunit rRNA genes from over 75 green algae disclosed 28 new group I intron-encoded proteins carrying a single LAGLIDADG motif. These putative homing endonucleases form four subfamilies of homologous enzymes, with the members of each subfamily being encoded by introns sharing the same insertion site. We showed that four divergent endonucleases from the I-CreI subfamily cleave the same DNA substrates. Mapping of the 66 amino acids that are conserved among the members of this subfamily on the 3-dimensional structure of I-CreI bound to its recognition sequence revealed that these residues participate in protein folding, homodimerization, DNA recognition and catalysis. Surprisingly, only seven of the 21 I-CreI amino acids interacting with DNA are conserved, suggesting that I-CreI and its homologs use different subsets of residues to recognize the same DNA sequence. Our sequence comparison of all 45 single-LAGLIDADG proteins identified so far suggests that these proteins share related structures and that there is a weak pressure in each subfamily to maintain identical protein-DNA contacts. The high sequence variability we observed in the DNA-binding site of homologous LAGLIDADG endonucleases provides insight into how these proteins evolve new DNA specificity.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations75
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207