MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159230616 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m405491200

Synthetic Two-piece and Three-piece Split Inteins for Protein trans-Splicing

2004· article· en· W2159230616 on OpenAlexaff
Wenchang Sun, Jing Yang, Xiang‐Qin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteinProtein splicingRNA splicingEndonucleaseProtein engineeringTrans-splicingHoming endonucleasednaB helicaseGeneticsBiologyComputational biologyGeneBiochemistryEnzymeRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inteins are protein-intervening sequences that can self-excise and concomitantly splice together the flanking polypeptides. Two-piece split inteins capable of protein trans-splicing have been found in nature and engineered in laboratories, but they all have a similar split site corresponding to the endonuclease domain of the intein. Can inteins be split at other sites and do trans-splicing? After testing 13 split sites engineered into a Ssp DnaB mini-intein, we report the finding of three new split sites that each produced a two-piece split intein capable of protein trans-splicing. These three functional split sites are located in different loop regions between beta-strands of the intein structure, and one of them is just 11 amino acids from the beginning of the intein. Because different inteins have similar structures and similar beta-strands, these new split sites may be generalized to other inteins. We have also demonstrated for the first time that a three-piece split intein could function in protein trans-splicing. These findings have implications for intein structure-function, evolution, and uses in biotechnology.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations118
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207