MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505688690 · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b01081

Comprehensive Characterization of Minichromosome Maintenance Complex (MCM) Protein Interactions Using Affinity and Proximity Purifications Coupled to Mass Spectrometry

2016· article· en· W2505688690 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Line Dubois, Charlotte Bastin, Dominique Lévesque, François‐Michel Boisvert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiotin and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInteractomeMinichromosome maintenanceComputational biologyProtein–protein interactionTandem affinity purificationMass spectrometryDNABiologyChemistryDNA replicationCell biologyAffinity chromatographyBiochemistryEukaryotic DNA replicationChromatographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive identification of protein-protein interactions under different conditions is an important challenge to understand the cellular functions of proteins. Here we use and compare different approaches including affinity purification and purification by proximity coupled to mass spectrometry to identify protein complexes. We explore the complete interactome of the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex by using both approaches for all of the different MCM proteins. Overall, our analysis identified unique and shared interaction partners and proteins enriched for distinct biological processes including DNA replication, DNA repair, and cell cycle regulation. Furthermore, we mapped the changes in protein interactions of the MCM complex in response to DNA damage, identifying a new role for this complex in DNA repair. In summary, we demonstrate the complementarity of these approaches for the characterization of protein interactions within the MCM complex.

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)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicBiotin and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207