Control of translation elongation in health and disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulation of protein synthesis makes a major contribution to post-transcriptional control pathways. During disease, or under stress, cells initiate processes to reprogramme protein synthesis and thus orchestrate the appropriate cellular response. Recent data show that the elongation stage of protein synthesis is a key regulatory node for translational control in health and disease. There is a complex set of factors that individually affect the overall rate of elongation and, for the most part, these influence either transfer RNA (tRNA)- and eukaryotic elongation factor 1A (eEF1A)-dependent codon decoding, and/or elongation factor 2 (eEF2)-dependent ribosome translocation along the mRNA. Decoding speeds depend on the relative abundance of each tRNA, the cognate:near-cognate tRNA ratios and the degree of tRNA modification, whereas eEF2-dependent ribosome translocation is negatively regulated by phosphorylation on threonine-56 by eEF2 kinase. Additional factors that contribute to the control of the elongation rate include epigenetic modification of the mRNA, coding sequence variation and the expression of eIF5A, which stimulates peptide bond formation between proline residues. Importantly, dysregulation of elongation control is central to disease mechanisms in both tumorigenesis and neurodegeneration, making the individual key steps in this process attractive therapeutic targets. Here, we discuss the relative contribution of individual components of the translational apparatus (e.g. tRNAs, elongation factors and their modifiers) to the overall control of translation elongation and how their dysregulation contributes towards disease processes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".