MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The QA repeat domain of TCERG1 plays a role in inhibiting C/EBPα and in its ability to undergo redistribution in the nucleus.

2013· article· en· W3172441792 on OpenAlexaff
William J. Roesler, Nikolaj A. Timchenko, Banafsheh Moazed

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topic14-3-3 protein interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedistribution (election)Transcription (linguistics)Cell biologyNucleusFunction (biology)ChemistryBiologyComputational biologyMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TCERG1 is a nuclear protein that functions in transcriptional elongation and the integration of transcription and mRNA processing. Our laboratory has shown that it also inhibits the various biochemical activities of C/EBPα, through a mechanism that involves its redistribution from its normal nuclear speckle compartment to pericentromeric regions which is where C/EBPα resides. We undertook structure/function analysis of TCERG1 to identify the domain that mediates this inhibitory effect. Previous studies from our lab indicated that the domain resided in the amino terminus portion of the protein, which contains three WW domains as well as a domain consisting of 38 QA repeats. While mutation of one or more of the WW domains had no effect on the inhibitory activity of TCERG1 or its ability to be redistributed, deletion of the QA domain abrogated both of these activities. Reducing the number of QA repeats to 20 had no measurable effect, while a further reduction to 10 repeats eliminated these activities of TCERG1. This study not only suggests a role for this unique domain, but also indicates that there is a minimal number of repeats necessary for it to function.

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)0.001
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topic14-3-3 protein interactionsFrench-language works237,207