Biochemical characterization of INTS3 and C9ORF80, two subunits of hNABP1/2 heterotrimeric complex in nucleic acid binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human nucleic acid-binding protein 1 and 2 (hNABP1 and hNABP2, also known as hSSB2 and hSSB1 respectively) form two separate and independent complexes with two identical proteins, integrator complex subunit 3 (INTS3) and C9ORF80. We and other groups have demonstrated that hNABP1 and 2 are single-stranded (ss) DNA- and RNA-binding proteins, and function in DNA repair; however, the function of INTS3 and C9OFR80 remains elusive. In the present study, we purified recombinant proteins INTS3 and C9ORF80 to near homogeneity. Both proteins exist as a monomer in solution; however, C9ORF80 exhibits anomalous behavior on SDS-PAGE and gel filtration because of 48% random coil present in the protein. Using electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA), INTS3 displays higher affinity toward ssRNA than ssDNA, and C9ORF80 binds ssDNA but not ssRNA. Neither of them binds dsDNA, dsRNA, or RNA : DNA hybrid. INTS3 requires minimum of 30 nucleotides, whereas C9OFR80 requires 20 nucleotides for its binding, which increased with the increasing length of ssDNA. Interestingly, our GST pulldown results suggest that the N-terminus of INTS3 is involved in protein-protein interaction, while EMSA implies that the C-terminus is required for nucleic acid binding. Furthermore, we purified the INTS3-hNABP1/2-C9ORF80 heterotrimeric complex. It exhibits weaker binding compared with the individual hNABP1/2; interestingly, the hNABP1 complex prefers ssDNA, whereas hNABP2 complex prefers ssRNA. Using reconstituted heterotrimeric complex from individual proteins, EMSA demonstrates that INTS3, but not C9ORF80, affects the nucleic acid-binding ability of hNABP1 and hNABP2, indicating that INTS3 might regulate hNABP1/2's biological function, while the role of C9ORF80 remains unknown.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".