MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174997895 · doi:10.1080/15384101.2021.1943879

A nuclear proteome localization screen reveals the exquisite specificity of Gpn2 in RNA polymerase biogenesis

2021· article· en· W3174997895 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean W. Minaker, Megan Kofoed, Philip Hieter, Peter C. Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaTerry Fox Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRNA polymerase IIBiologyPolymeraseSmall nuclear RNACell biologyRNARNA polymerase IMolecular biologyRNA-binding proteinRNA-dependent RNA polymeraseRNA polymeraseGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GPN proteins are a conserved family of GTP-binding proteins that are involved in the assembly and subsequent import of RNA polymerase II and III. In this study, we sought to ascertain the specificity of yeast GPN2 for RNA polymerases by screening the localization of a collection of 1350 GFP-tagged nuclear proteins in WT or GPN2 mutant cells. We found that the strongest mislocalization occurred for RNA polymerase II and III subunits and only a handful of other RNAPII associated proteins were altered in GPN2 mutant cells. Our screen identified Ess1, an Rpb1 C-terminal domain (CTD) prolyl isomerase, as mislocalized in GPN2 mutants. Building on this observation we tested for effects of mutations in other factors which regulate Rpb1-CTD phosphorylation status. This uncovered significant changes in nuclear-cytoplasmic distribution of Rpb1-GFP in strains with disrupted RNA polymerase CTD kinases or phosphatases. Overall, this screen shows the exquisite specificity of GPN2 for RNA polymerase transport, and reveals a previously unappreciated role for CTD modification in RNAPII nuclear localization.

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 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207