MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159704743 · doi:10.1111/jeu.12203

Role of the Cytosolic Heat Shock Protein 70 Ssa5 in the Ciliate Protozoan <i>Tetrahymena thermophila</i>

2015· article· en· W2159704743 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasuhiro Fukuda, Takahiko Akematsu, Rizwan Attiq, Chika Tada, Yutaka Nakai, Ronald E. Pearlman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyTetrahymenaPronucleusHeterokaryonCell biologySomatic cellCiliateHeat shock proteinHsp70ZygoteGeneticsChaperone (clinical)MacronucleusGeneEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) is a member of a family of conserved chaperone proteins whose function is well investigated in many model organisms. Here we focus on an Hsp70 called Ssa5 in the ciliate protozoan Tetrahymena thermophila, and reveal that its translation is heat inducible as for general Hsps. Moreover, the protein is abundantly expressed in the cytoplasm during sexual reproduction (conjugation) as well as in response to heat-stress. Knocking out of SSA5 (ΔSSA5) does not affect the survival of the cell under heat-stress, likely due to other Hsp70 paralogs compensating for the defect. During conjugation, ΔSSA5 leads to a fertilization defect in which the two pronuclei are in close proximity but never fuse. The unfertilized pronuclei differentiate, resulting in a heterokaryon with developed haploid germline and somatic nuclei. In addition, degeneration of the parental somatic nucleus is not affected. These results suggest a specific involvement of Ssa5 in pronuclear fusion and fertilization.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207