MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153661038 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0611015104

Cell stress modulates the function of splicing regulatory protein RBM4 in translation control

2007· article· en· W2153661038 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jung-Chun Lin, Min Hsu, Woan‐Yuh Tarn

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health Research InstitutesMcGill UniversityYale University
KeywordsInternal ribosome entry siteStress granuleBiologyTranslation (biology)RNA-binding proteinCell biologyPhosphorylationMolecular biologyRNAMessenger RNABiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA-binding motif protein 4 (RBM4) plays a regulatory role in alternative splicing of precursor mRNA. We show here that cell stress such as arsenite exposure induces phosphorylation of RBM4 at serine 309 and also drives its cytoplasmic accumulation and targeting to stress granule via the MKK(3/6)-p38 signaling pathway. Accordingly, RBM4 suppresses cap-dependent translation in a cis-element-dependent manner. However, RBM4 concomitantly activates internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-mediated translation likely by promoting the association of translation initiation factor eIF4A with IRES-containing mRNAs. Overexpression of RBM4 therefore mimics the effect of cell stress-induced signaling on translation initiation control. Whereas arsenite treatment promotes RBM4 loading onto IRES mRNAs and enhances RBM4-eIF4A interactions, a nonphosphorylatable mutant of RBM4 was unresponsive to arsenite stress and failed to activate IRES-mediated translation. Thus, our results uncover a previously unrecognized paradigm for the RNA-binding protein RBM4 in its phosphorylation-modulated dual action as a suppressor of cap-dependent and enhancer of IRES-mediated translation in response to stress signals.

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)0.002
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations107
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207