MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339848975 · doi:10.1242/jcs.114.20.3767

Addition and correction: the NF-κB-like DNA binding activity observed in<i>Dictyostelium</i>nuclear extracts is due to the GBF transcription factor

2001· erratum· en· W2339848975 on OpenAlexaff
François Traincard, Eleonora Ponte, Jason Pun, Barrie Coukell, Michel Véron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2001
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictyosteliumBiologyDictyostelium discoideumSlime moldTranscription factorDNADNA-binding proteinTranscription (linguistics)Signal transductionGeneticsKappaGenomeCell biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously reported that a NF-kappa B transduction pathway was likely to be present in the cellular slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum. This conclusion was based on several observations, including the detection of developmentally regulated DNA binding proteins in Dictyostelium nuclear extracts that bound to bona fide kappa B sequences. We have now performed additional experiments which demonstrate that the protein responsible for this NF-kappa B-like DNA binding activity is the Dictyostelium GBF (G box regulatory element binding factor) transcription factor. This result, along with the fact that no sequence with significant similarity to components of the mammalian NF-kappa B pathway can be found in Dictyostelium genome, now almost entirely sequenced, led us to reconsider our previous conclusion on the occurrence of a NF-kappa B signal transduction pathway in Dictyostelium.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.034

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207