MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403190777 · doi:10.1242/dev.202908

Tracking and measuring local protein synthesis <i>in vivo</i>

2024· article· en· W4403190777 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibrahim Kays, Brian E. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicClick Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyFluorescenceIn vivoGreen fluorescent proteinProtein biosynthesisYellow fluorescent proteinBiophysicsProtein tagFluorescent proteinCell biologyMolecular biologyGeneBiochemistryGeneticsFusion proteinRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting when and how much of a protein molecule is synthesized is important for understanding cell function, but current methods either cannot be performed in vivo or have poor temporal resolution. Here, we developed a technique to detect and quantify subcellular protein synthesis events in real time in vivo. This Protein Translation Reporting (PTR) technique uses a genetic tag that produces a stoichiometric ratio of a small peptide portion of a split fluorescent protein and the protein of interest during protein synthesis. We show that the split fluorescent protein peptide can generate fluorescence within milliseconds upon binding the larger portion of the fluorescent protein, and that the fluorescence intensity is directly proportional to the number of molecules of the protein of interest synthesized. Using PTR, we tracked and measured protein synthesis events in single cells over time in vivo. We use different color split fluorescent proteins to detect multiple genes or alleles in single cells simultaneously. We also split a photoswitchable fluorescent protein to photoconvert the reconstituted fluorescent protein to a different channel to continually reset the time of detection of synthesis events.

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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicClick Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207