MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611760967 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176184

A method for labeling proteins with tags at the native genomic loci in budding yeast

2017· article· en· W2611760967 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Wang, Huijun Xue, Siqi Li, Ying Chen, Xue-Lei Tian, Xin Xu, Wei Xiao, Yu Fu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesInstitute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaRoyal Society
KeywordsmCherrySaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiologyGeneticsHomologous recombinationProtein tagComputational biologyFusion proteinGeneGenomeSelectable markerLocus (genetics)YeastShuttle vectorGreen fluorescent proteinRecombinant DNAVector (molecular biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescent proteins and epitope tags are often used as protein fusion tags to study target proteins. One prevailing technique in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is to fuse these tags to a target gene at the precise chromosomal location via homologous recombination. However, several limitations hamper the application of this technique, such as the selectable markers not being reusable, tagging of only the C-terminal being possible, and a "scar" sequence being left in the genome. Here, we describe a strategy to solve these problems by tagging target genes based on a pop-in/pop-out and counter-selection system. Three fluorescent protein tag (mCherry, sfGFP, and mKikGR) and two epitope tag (HA and 3×FLAG) constructs were developed and utilized to tag HHT1, UBC13 or RAD5 at the chromosomal locus as proof-of-concept.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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 ONESame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207