MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925993043 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1813026116

O-GlcNAcylation of core components of the translation initiation machinery regulates protein synthesis

2019· article· en· W2925993043 on OpenAlexaff
Xuexia Li, Qiang Zhu, Xiaoliu Shi, Yaxian Cheng, Xueliu Li, Huan Xu, Xiaotao Duan, Linda C. Hsieh‐Wilson, Jennifer Chu, Jerry Pelletier, Maowei Ni, Zhiguo Zheng, Sihui Li, Wen Yi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsProtein biosynthesisEIF4GTranslation (biology)EIF4ECell biologyEukaryotic translation initiation factor 4 gammaBiologyEIF4EBP1Eukaryotic translationInitiation factorEIF4A1BiochemistryMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-acetyl-glucosamine (O-GlcNAcylation) regulates translation initiation by modifying core initiation factors eIF4A and eIF4G, respectively. Mechanistically, site-specific O-GlcNAcylation of eIF4A on Ser322/323 disrupts the formation of the translation initiation complex by perturbing its interaction with eIF4G. In addition, O-GlcNAcylation inhibits the duplex unwinding activity of eIF4A, leading to impaired protein synthesis, and decreased cell proliferation. In contrast, site-specific O-GlcNAcylation of eIF4G on Ser61 promotes its interaction with poly(A)-binding protein (PABP) and poly(A) mRNA. Depletion of eIF4G O-GlcNAcylation results in inhibition of protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and soft agar colony formation. The differential glycosylation of eIF4A and eIF4G appears to be regulated in the initiation complex to fine-tune protein synthesis. Our study thus expands the current understanding of protein synthesis, and adds another dimension of complexity to translational control of cellular proteins.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations86
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207