Interaction cloning and characterization of RoBPI, a novel protein binding to human Ro ribonucleoproteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human Ro ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) are autoantigenic particles of unknown function(s) that consist of a 60-kDa protein (Ro60) associated with one hY RNA (hY1-5). Using a modified yeast three-hybrid system, named RNP interaction trap assay (RITA), we cloned a novel Ro RNP-binding protein (RoBPI), based on its property to interact in vivo in yeast with an RNP complex made of recombinant Ro60 (rRo60) protein and hY5 (rhY5) RNA. RoBPI cDNA contains three conserved RNA recognition motifs (RRM) and is present as a family of isoforms differing slightly at their 5' end. The 2.0-kb RoBPI mRNA was detected in all human tissues tested. Highly homologous cDNA sequences were found in banks of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from mice. Two-hybrid, three-hybrid, and RITA experiments respectively established that 60 kDa RoBPI did not interact in yeast with rRo60 alone, with rhY5 RNA alone, or with bait RNPs consisting of rRo60 and recombinant hY1, hY3, or hY4 RNAs. RoBPI coimmunoprecipitated with Ro RNPs from HeLa cell extracts and partially colocalized with Ro60 in nuclei of cultured cells. Because hY5 RNA and RohY5 RNPs are recent evolutionary additions seen only in primates, but RoBPI seems more conserved, their interaction may represent a gain of function for Ro RNPs. Alternatively, interaction of RohY5 RNPs with RoBPI may have no functional bearing, but may underlie some of the unique biochemical and immunological properties of these RNPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".