MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple Signals Regulate <i>GAL</i> Transcription in Yeast

2000· article· en· W2170788092 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Rohde, Jennifer Trinh, Ivan Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBiologyPhosphorylationRNA polymerase IIRNA polymerase II holoenzymeInducerGalactoseGalactokinaseSaccharomyces cerevisiaeTranscription factorTranscription (linguistics)BiochemistryCell biologyRepressorTranscription factor II DYeastGeneGene expressionRNA polymeraseRNAPromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gal4p activates transcription of the Saccharomyces GAL genes in response to galactose and is phosphorylated during interaction with the RNA polymerase II (Pol II) holoenzyme. One phosphorylation at S699 is necessary for full GAL induction and is mediated by Srb10p/CDK8 of the RNA Pol II holoenzyme mediator subcomplex. Gal4p S699 phosphorylation is necessary for sensitive response to inducer, and its requirement for GAL induction can be abrogated by high concentrations of galactose in strains expressing wild-type GAL2 and GAL3. Gal4p S699 phosphorylation occurs independently of Gal3p and is responsible for the long-term adaptation response observed in gal3 yeast. SRB10 and GAL3 are shown to represent parallel mechanisms for GAL gene induction. These results demonstrate that Gal4p activity is controlled by two independent signals: one that acts through Gal3p-galactose and a second that is mediated by the holoenzyme-associated cyclin-dependent kinase Srb10p. Since Srb10p is regulated independently of galactose, our results suggest a function for CDK8 in coordinating responses to specific inducers with the environment through the phosphorylation of gene-specific activators.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations72
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207