Does N‐Terminal Protein Acetylation Lead to Protein Degradation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The N-end rule denotes the relationship between the identity of the amino-terminal residue of a protein and its in vivo half-life. Since its discovery in 1986, the N-end rule has generally been described by a defined set of rules for determining whether an amino-terminal residue is stabilizing or not. However, recent studies are revealing that this N-end rule (or N-degron concept) is less straightforward than previously appreciated. For instance, it is unveiled that N-terminal acetylation of N-terminal residues may create a degradation signal (Ac-degron) that promotes the degradation of target proteins. A recent high-throughput dissection of degrons in yeast proteins amino termini intriguingly suggested that the hydrophobicity of amino-terminal residues-but not the N-terminal acetylation status-may be the indispensable feature of amino-terminal degrons. Herein, these recent advances in N-terminal acetylation and the complexity of N-terminal degradation signals in the context of the N-degron pathway are analyzed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".