MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602323044 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006645

CSL encodes a leucine-rich-repeat protein implicated in red/violet light signaling to the circadian clock in Chlamydomonas

2017· article· en· W2602323044 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ayumi Kinoshita, Yoshimi Niwa, Kiyoshi Onai, Takashi Yamano, Hideya Fukuzawa, Masahiro Ishiura, Takuya Matsuo

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceInstitute of GeneticsKato Memorial Bioscience FoundationRIKENKurata Memorial Hitachi Science and Technology Foundation
KeywordsChlamydomonas reinhardtiiChlamydomonasCircadian clockBiologyCircadian rhythmCell biologyCryptochromeMutantGeneticsGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii shows various light responses in behavior and physiology. One such photoresponse is the circadian clock, which can be reset by external light signals to entrain its oscillation to daily environmental cycles. In a previous report, we suggested that a light-induced degradation of the clock protein ROC15 is a trigger to reset the circadian clock in Chlamydomonas. However, light signaling pathways of this process remained unclear. Here, we screened for mutants that show abnormal ROC15 diurnal rhythms, including the light-induced protein degradation at dawn, using a luciferase fusion reporter. In one mutant, ROC15 degradation and phase resetting of the circadian clock by light were impaired. Interestingly, the impairments were observed in response to red and violet light, but not to blue light. We revealed that an uncharacterized gene encoding a protein similar to RAS-signaling-related leucine-rich repeat (LRR) proteins is responsible for the mutant phenotypes. Our results indicate that a previously uncharacterized red/violet light signaling pathway is involved in the phase resetting of circadian clock in Chlamydomonas.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207