MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750674980 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11344-4

Deamination-independent restriction of LINE-1 retrotransposition by APOBEC3H

2017· article· en· W2750674980 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuqing Feng, Mariam Goubran, Tyson B. Follack, Linda Chelico

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetrotransposonDeaminationCytosineReverse transcriptaseComplementary DNAADARBiologyAPOBEC3GGeneticsDNARNAMolecular biologyEnzymeCytidine deaminaseBiochemistryRNA editingGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The APOBEC3 family of cytosine deaminase enzymes are able to restrict replication of retroelements, such as LINE-1. However, each of the seven APOBEC3 enzymes have been reported to act differentially to prevent LINE-1 retrotransposition and the mechanisms of APOBEC3-mediated LINE-1 inhibition has not been well understood. The prevailing view for many years was that APOBEC3-mediated LINE-1 inhibition was deamination-independent and relied on APOBEC3s blocking the LINE-1 reverse transcriptase DNA polymerization or transport of the LINE-1 RNA into the nucleus. However, recently it was shown that APOBEC3A can deaminate cytosine, to form uracil, on transiently exposed single-stranded LINE-1 cDNA and this leads to LINE-1 cDNA degradation. In this study, we confirmed that APOBEC3A is a potent deamination-dependent inhibitor of LINE-1 retrotransposition, but show that in contrast, A3H haplotype II and haplotype V restrict LINE-1 activity using a deamination-independent mechanism. Our study supports the model that different APOBEC3 proteins have evolved to inhibit LINE-1 retrotransposition through distinct mechanisms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207