Direct and high throughput (HT) interactions on the ribosomal surface by iRIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ribosomes function as platforms for binding of other molecules, but technologies for studying this process are lacking. Therefore we developed iRIA (in vitro Ribosomes Interaction Assay). In approach I, Artemia salina ribosomes spotted on solid phase are used for binding picomoles of analytes; in approach II, cellular extracts allow the measurement of ribosome activity in different conditions. We apply the method to analyze several features of eIF6 binding to 60S subunits. By approach I, we show that the off-rate of eIF6 from preribosomes is slower than from mature ribosomes and that its binding to mature 60S occurs in the nM affinity range. By approach II we show that eIF6 binding sites on 60S are increased with mild eIF6 depletion and decreased in cells that are devoid of SBDS, a ribosomal factor necessary for 60S maturation and involved in Swachman Diamond syndrome. We show binding conditions to immobilized ribosomes adaptable to HT and quantify free ribosomes in cell extracts. In conclusion, we suggest that iRIA will greatly facilitate the study of interactions on the ribosomal surface.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".