RNA-binding proteins that lack canonical RNA-binding domains are rarely sequence-specific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) crosslink to cellular mRNA. Among these are numerous unconventional RBPs (ucRBPs)-proteins that associate with RNA but lack known RNA-binding domains (RBDs). The vast majority of ucRBPs have uncharacterized RNA-binding specificities. We analyzed 492 human ucRBPs for intrinsic RNA-binding in vitro and identified 23 that bind specific RNA sequences. Most (17/23), including 8 ribosomal proteins, were previously associated with RNA-related function. We identified the RBDs responsible for sequence-specific RNA-binding for several of these 23 ucRBPs and surveyed whether corresponding domains from homologous proteins also display RNA sequence specificity. CCHC-zf domains from seven human proteins recognized specific RNA motifs, indicating that this is a major class of RBD. For Nudix, HABP4, TPR, RanBP2-zf, and L7Ae domains, however, only isolated members or closely related homologs yielded motifs, consistent with RNA-binding as a derived function. The lack of sequence specificity for most ucRBPs is striking, and we suggest that many may function analogously to chromatin factors, which often crosslink efficiently to cellular DNA, presumably via indirect recruitment. Finally, we show that ucRBPs tend to be highly abundant proteins and suggest their identification in RNA interactome capture studies could also result from weak nonspecific interactions with RNA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".