MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390690644 · doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkad295

Genetic screens in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> identify a role for 40S ribosome recycling factors Tma20 and Tma22 in nonsense-mediated decay

2024· article· en· W4390690644 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel Pacheco, Karole N. D’Orazio, Laura N. Lessen, Anthony J. Veltri, Zachary Neiman, Raphaël Loll‐Krippleber, Grant W. Brown, Rachel Green

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeNonsenseGeneticsGenetic screenCell biologyYeastGenePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decay of messenger RNA with a premature termination codon by nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) is an important regulatory pathway for eukaryotes and an essential pathway in mammals. NMD is typically triggered by the ribosome terminating at a stop codon that is aberrantly distant from the poly-A tail. Here, we use a fluorescence screen to identify factors involved in NMD in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition to the known NMD factors, including the entire UPF family (UPF1, UPF2, and UPF3), as well as NMD4 and EBS1, we identify factors known to function in posttermination recycling and characterize their contribution to NMD. These observations in S. cerevisiae expand on data in mammals indicating that the 60S recycling factor ABCE1 is important for NMD by showing that perturbations in factors implicated in 40S recycling also correlate with a loss of NMD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207