MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549104476 · doi:10.1091/mbc.e16-06-0354

Model-guided optogenetic study of PKA signaling in budding yeast

2016· article· en· W2549104476 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacob Stewart-Ornstein, Susan Chen, Rajat Bhatnagar, Jonathan S. Weissman, Hana El‐Samad

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology of the Cell · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPaul G. Allen Family FoundationUniversity of California, San FranciscoHoward Hughes Medical InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOptogeneticsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiologyBudding yeastAdenylate kinaseProtein kinase ARegulatorYeastCell biologySignal transductionGTPaseCyclaseTOR signalingSmall GTPaseKinaseComputational biologyBiochemistryEnzymeNeuroscienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In eukaryotes, protein kinase A (PKA) is a master regulator of cell proliferation and survival. The activity of PKA is subject to elaborate control and exhibits complex time dynamics. To probe the quantitative attributes of PKA dynamics in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we developed an optogenetic strategy that uses a photoactivatable adenylate cyclase to achieve real-time regulation of cAMP and the PKA pathway. We capitalize on the precise and rapid control afforded by this optogenetic tool, together with quantitative computational modeling, to study the properties of feedback in the PKA signaling network and dissect the nonintuitive dynamic effects that ensue from perturbing its components. Our analyses reveal that negative feedback channeled through the Ras1/2 GTPase is delayed, pinpointing its time scale and its contribution to the dynamic features of the cAMP/PKA signaling network.

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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology of the CellSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207