MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297970391

Interaction between a Ras and a Rho GTPase couples selection of a growth site to the development of cell polarity in yeast

2003· preprint· en· W4297970391 on OpenAlexaff
Keith G. Kozminski, L. Beven, E. Angerman, A. Hin yan Tong, C. Boone, Hay-Oak Park

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGTPasePolarity (international relations)YeastCell polarityCell biologySelection (genetic algorithm)Small GTPaseBiologyCellChemistryGeneticsSignal transductionComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarized cell growth requires the coupling of a defined spatial site on the cell cortex to the apparatus that directs the establishment of cell polarity. In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the Ras-family GTPase Rsr1p/Bud1p and its regulators select the proper site for bud emergence on the cell cortex. The Rho-family GTPase Cdc42p and its associated proteins then establish an axis of polarized growth by triggering an asymmetric organization of the actin cytoskeleton and secretory apparatus at the selected bud site. We explored whether a direct linkage exists between the Rsr1p/Bud1p and Cdc42p GTPases. Here we show specific genetic interactions between RSR1/BUD1 and particular cdc42 mutants defective in polarity establishment. We also show that Cdc42p coimmunoprecipitated with Rsr1p/Bud1p from yeast extracts. In vitro studies indicated a direct interaction between Rsr1p/Bud1p and Cdc42p, which was enhanced by Cdc24p, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Cdc42p. Our findings suggest that Cdc42p interacts directly with Rsr1p/Bud1p in vivo, providing a novel mechanism by which direct contact between a Ras-family GTPase and a Rho-family GTPase links the selection of a growth site to polarity establishment.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207