MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2796687384 · doi:10.1101/303537

Targeting Human Retinoblastoma Binding Protein 4 (RBBP4) and 7 (RBBP7)

2018· preprint· en· W2796687384 on OpenAlexafffund
Megha Abbey, Viacheslav V. Trush, Elisa Gibson, Masoud Vedadi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersInnovative Medicines InitiativeFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationNovartis PharmaWellcome TrustNovartisGenome CanadaEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMerckBayerPfizer
KeywordsHistoneHistone H3Computational biologyBiologyPRC2Binding siteChemistryGeneticsBiochemistryDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RBBP4 and RBBP7 (RBBP4/7) are highly homologous nuclear WD40 motif containing proteins widely implicated in various cancers and are valuable drug targets. They interact with multiple proteins within diverse complexes such as NuRD and PRC2, as well as histone H3 and H4 through two distinct binding sites. FOG-1, PHF6 and histone H3 bind to the top of the donut shape seven-bladed β-propeller fold, while SUZ12, MTA1 and histone H4 bind to a pocket on the side of the WD40 repeats. Here, we briefly review these six interactions and present binding assays optimized for medium to high throughput screening. These assays enable screening of RBBP4/7 toward the discovery of novel cancer therapeutics.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways→French-language works237,207→