LARP1 and LARP4: up close with PABP for mRNA 3’ poly(A) protection and stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La-related proteins (LARPs) share a La motif (LaM) followed by an RNA recognition motif (RRM). Together these are termed the La-module that, in the prototypical nuclear La protein and LARP7, mediates binding to the UUU-3ʹOH termination motif of nascent RNA polymerase III transcripts. We briefly review La and LARP7 activities for RNA 3ʹ end binding and protection from exonucleases before moving to the more recently uncovered poly(A)-related activities of LARP1 and LARP4. Two features shared by LARP1 and LARP4 are direct binding to poly(A) and to the cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein (PABP, also known as PABPC1). LARP1, LARP4 and other proteins involved in mRNA translation, deadenylation, and decay, contain PAM2 motifs with variable affinities for the MLLE domain of PABP. We discuss a model in which these PABP-interacting activities contribute to poly(A) pruning of active mRNPs. Evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus targets PABP, LARP1, LARP 4 and LARP 4B to control mRNP activity is also briefly reviewed. Recent data suggests that LARP4 opposes deadenylation by stabilizing PABP on mRNA poly(A) tails. Other data suggest that LARP1 can protect mRNA from deadenylation. This is dependent on a PAM2 motif with unique characteristics present in its La-module. Thus, while nuclear La and LARP7 stabilize small RNAs with 3ʹ oligo(U) from decay, LARP1 and LARP4 bind and protect mRNA 3ʹ poly(A) tails from deadenylases through close contact with PABP.Abbreviations: 5ʹTOP: 5ʹ terminal oligopyrimidine, LaM: La motif, LARP: La-related protein, LARP1: La-related protein 1, MLLE: mademoiselle, NTR: N-terminal region, PABP: cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein (PABPC1), Pol III: RNA polymerase III, PAM2: PABP-interacting motif 2, PB: processing body, RRM: RNA recognition motif, SG: stress granule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
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".