MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328168323 · doi:10.1080/15476286.2016.1154252

Proteome distribution between nucleoplasm and nucleolus and its relation to ribosome biogenesis in<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>

2016· article· en· W2328168323 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Palm, Stefan Simm, Katrin Darm, Benjamin L. Weis, Maike Ruprecht, Enrico Schleiff, Christian Scharf

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine Biosciences
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsRibosome biogenesisBiologyNucleolusRibosomal proteinProteomeRibosomeArabidopsis thalianaCell biologyNucleoplasmArabidopsisCytoplasmGeneticsRNAGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ribosome biogenesis is an essential process initiated in the nucleolus. In eukaryotes, multiple ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs) can be found in the nucleolus, the nucleus and in the cytoplasm. They act in processing, folding and modification of the pre-ribosomal (r)RNAs, incorporation of ribosomal proteins (RPs), export of pre-ribosomal particles to the cytoplasm, and quality control mechanisms. Ribosome biogenesis is best established for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Plant ortholog assignment to yeast RBFs revealed the absence of about 30% of the yeast RBFs in plants. In turn, few plant specific proteins have been identified by biochemical experiments to act in plant ribosome biogenesis. Nevertheless, a complete inventory of plant RBFs has not been established yet. We analyzed the proteome of the nucleus and nucleolus of Arabidopsis thaliana and the post-translational modifications of these proteins. We identified 1602 proteins in the nucleolar and 2544 proteins in the nuclear fraction with an overlap of 1429 proteins. For a randomly selected set of proteins identified by the proteomic approach we confirmed the localization inferred from the proteomics data by the localization of GFP fusion proteins. We assigned the identified proteins to various complexes and functions and found about 519 plant proteins that have a potential to act as a RBFs, but which have not been experimentally characterized yet. Last, we compared the distribution of RBFs and RPs in the various fractions with the distribution established for yeast.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNA BiologySame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207