Structure–Function Analysis of RBP7910: An Editosome Z-Binding Protein in Trypanosomatids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA editing, a unique post-transcriptional modification, is observed in trypanosomatid parasites as a crucial procedure for the maturation of mitochondrial mRNAs. The editosome protein complex, involving multiple protein components, plays a key role in this process. In Trypanosoma brucei, a putative Z-DNA binding protein known as RBP7910 is associated with the editosome. However, the specific Z-DNA/Z-RNA binding activity and the interacting interface of RBP7910 have yet to be determined. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the binding behavior of RBP7910 with different potential ligands using microscale thermophoresis (MST). Additionally, we generated a 3D model of the protein, revealing potential Z-α and Z-β nucleic acid-binding domains of RBP7910. RBP7910 belongs to the winged-helix–turn–helix (HTH) superfamily of proteins with an α1α2α3β1β2 topology. Finally, using docking techniques, potential interacting surface regions of RBP7910 with notable oligonucleotide ligands were identified. Our findings indicate that RBP7910 exhibits a notable affinity for (CG)n Z-DNA, both in single-stranded and double-stranded forms. Moreover, we observed a broader interacting interface across its Z-α domain when bound to Z-DNA/Z-RNA compared to when bound to non-Z-form nucleic acid ligands.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".