MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315388973 · doi:10.2174/0929866511320090005

Deciphering a Serum Peptide Activity Associated with Biologic Clock

2013· article· en· W2315388973 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Yu, Ho Shing

Bibliographic record

VenueProtein and Peptide Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircadian rhythmBiologyCircadian clockNucleolusPeriod (music)RhythmAlternative splicingCell biologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineGeneticsGeneMessenger RNANucleusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circadian rhythms have been widely observed in plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria. The periodic rhythm is roughly 24-hour cycle in biochemical, physiological, or behavioral processes in organisms. Although circadian rhythms are endogenously-driven, an organism's circadian clock is adjusted to the environmental stimuli and must maintain the periodicity of biologic rhythm despite the changing kinetics in cellular activities. Some cellular proteins are believed to be associated with circadian rhythms. In this study, deficiency of a serum protein in human subjects was detected in individuals diagnosed with sleep disorders. N-terminal sequence analysis of the short peptide with BLAST sequence alignment software on NCBI indicated that it might be related to the protein named Hlark (human lark protein). Lark is required for embryonic development, and is, in fact, RBM4, a splicing regulator. RBM4 is crucial for targeting to speckles. This finding is consistent with the potential existence of a novel sub-nuclear targeting pathway. RBM4 and Lark is probably the same protein and are localized in speckles and nucleoli, but can redistribute to peri-nucleolar clusters, consistent with a novel sub-nuclear pathway.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtein and Peptide LettersSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207