Interaction, mobility, and phosphorylation of human orthologues of WD repeat-containing components of the yeast SSU processome t-UTP sub-complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously proposed a dynamic scaffold model for inner nuclear structure formation. In this model, structures in inter-chromatin regions are maintained through dynamic interaction of protein complex modules, and WD repeat- and disordered region-rich proteins and others act as scaffolds for these protein complexes. In this study, three WD-repeat proteins, i.e., CIRH1A, UTP15, and WDR43, were found in the nuclear matrix fraction and speculated to be present in the human t-UTP sub-complex of SSU processomes. The results obtained as to their subnuclear localization, binding with each other, mobilities, and phosphorylation were: (i) the majority of these proteins fused with GFP are localized to the fibrillar center region in nucleoli. (ii) these 3 proteins bind directly with each other in vitro. (iii) the movement of these proteins is very slow in living cells and independent of rDNA transcription. (iv) His-CIRH1A is phosphorylated at Thr(131) by a mitotic Xenopus egg extract, and binding with GST-UTP15 and GST-WDR43 is suppressed. These findings and others suggest that these 3 WD proteins found in the matrix fraction bind directly with each other, bind tightly to fibrillar center regions, and comprise a part of the nucleolar structure. These results are also consistent with our dynamic scaffold model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".