MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180236011 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-466-7_14

Protein Targeting in ‘‘Secondary’’ or ‘‘Complex’’ Chloroplasts

2007· article· en· W2180236011 on OpenAlexaff
Balbir K. Chaal, Beverley R. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChloroplastEndoplasmic reticulumEukaryoteChloroplast membraneBiologyCell biologyTransit PeptideRibosomeThylakoidProtein targetingMembraneCytoplasmTransloconMembrane proteinCytosolPlastidBiochemistryGenomeRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All the algae with chlorophyll (Chl) c (haptophytes, cryptophytes, and heterokonts such as diatoms) acquired their chloroplasts by secondary endosymbiosis, where a nonphotosynthetic eukaryote host engulfed (or was invaded by) a red alga. This resulted in chloroplasts with four bounding membranes. The outermost membrane (chloroplast endoplasmic reticulum [ER]), is physically continuous with the rough ER, and in some algal species can be seen to have cytoplasmic ribosomes attached to its outer surface. All nuclear-encoded chloroplast proteins have an N-terminal ER targeting sequence, which is cleaved off during transit across this membrane. We know little about how proteins cross the next membrane and engage the import translocons of the envelope membranes. One way to study the targeting of proteins across the inner membranes is to make constructs lacking the ER signal sequence, translate them in vitro, and assay their import into pea chloroplasts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207