MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386353132 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113082

Modification of histidine repeat proteins by inorganic polyphosphate

2023· article· en· W4386353132 on OpenAlexafffund
Nolan Neville, Kirsten Lehotsky, Zhiyun Yang, Kody Klupt, Alix Denoncourt, Michael Downey, Zongchao Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityBeijing Normal University
KeywordsHistidinePolyphosphateBiochemistryPhosphorylationCovalent bondLysineHistidine kinaseChemistryPosttranslational modificationChemical modificationBiologyEnzymeAmino acidPhosphate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inorganic polyphosphate (polyP) is a linear polymer of orthophosphate that is present in nearly all organisms studied to date. A remarkable function of polyP involves its attachment to lysine residues via non-enzymatic post-translational modification (PTM), which is presumed to be covalent. Here, we show that proteins containing tracts of consecutive histidine residues exhibit a similar modification by polyP, which confers an electrophoretic mobility shift on NuPAGE gels. Our screen uncovers 30 human and yeast histidine repeat proteins that undergo histidine polyphosphate modification (HPM). This polyP modification is histidine dependent and non-covalent in nature, although remarkably it withstands harsh denaturing conditions-a hallmark of covalent PTMs. Importantly, we show that HPM disrupts phase separation and the phosphorylation activity of the human protein kinase DYRK1A, and inhibits the activity of the transcription factor MafB, highlighting HPM as a potential protein regulatory mechanism.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207