MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388398374 · doi:10.1002/bies.202300145

The eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF4E unexpectedly acts in splicing thereby coupling mRNA processing with translation

2023· article· en· W4388398374 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine L. B. Borden

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEIF4ERNA splicingSpliceosomeBiologySplicing factorEukaryotic translationTranslation (biology)Messenger RNASR proteinCell biologyInitiation factorGeneticsComputational biologyRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent findings position the eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF4E as a novel modulator of mRNA splicing, a process that impacts the form and function of resultant proteins. eIF4E physically interacts with the spliceosome and with some intron-containing transcripts implying a direct role in some splicing events. Moreover, eIF4E drives the production of key components of the splicing machinery underpinning larger scale impacts on splicing. These drive eIF4E-dependent reprogramming of the splicing signature. This work completes a series of studies demonstrating eIF4E acts in all the major mRNA maturation steps whereby eIF4E drives production of the RNA processing machinery and escorts some transcripts through various maturation steps. In this way, eIF4E couples the mRNA processing-export-translation axis linking nuclear mRNA processing to cytoplasmic translation. eIF4E elevation is linked to worse outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia patients where these activities are dysregulated. Understanding these effects provides new insight into post-transcriptional control and eIF4E-driven cancers.

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 score0.498
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207