MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975698267 · doi:10.1002/bies.201800167

Does N‐Terminal Protein Acetylation Lead to Protein Degradation?

2019· review· en· W2975698267 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed A. Eldeeb, Richard P. Fahlman, Mohamed A. Ragheb, Mansoore Esmaili

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeptidase Inhibition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetylationTerminal (telecommunication)Lead (geology)Degradation (telecommunications)Protein degradationChemistryBiochemistryCell biologyBiologyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207