The research report should be a detailed narrative explaining the function, biological processes, and localization of the gene product. Citations should be given for all claims.

You should prioritize authoritative reviews and primary scientific literature when conducting research. You can supplement
this with annotations you find in gene/protein databases, but these can be outdated or inaccurate.

We are specifically interested in the primary function of the gene - for enzymes, what reaction is catalyzed, and what is the substrate specificity? For transporters, what is the substrate? For structural proteins or adapters, what is the broader structural role? For signaling molecules, what is the role in the pathway.

We are interested in where in or outside the cell the gene product carries out its function.

We are also interested in the signaling or biochemical pathways in which the gene functions. We are less interested in broad pleiotropic effects, except where these elucidate the precise role.

Include evidence where possible. We are interested in both experimental evidence as well as inference from structure, evolution, or bioinformatic analysis. Precise studies should be prioritized over high-throughput, where available.

Research report: Schizosaccharomyces pombe SPCC16C4.02c (UniProt: O74447)

Executive summary

The fission yeast ORF SPCC16C4.02c (UniProt accession O74447) is sparsely characterized in the accessible primary literature retrieved here. The most direct experimental evidence available from peer‑reviewed research indicates that SPCC16C4.02c is a named component of the S. pombe Ino80 chromatin‑remodeling complex and that mutants involving SPCC16C4.02c behave epistatically with other Ino80 subunits in assays of doxorubicin resistance, consistent with a role in the same chromatin remodeling pathway/complex rather than an independent parallel pathway. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Table: This table summarizes the retrieved evidence for the fission yeast gene SPCC16C4.02c (UniProt O74447). It distinguishes direct gene-specific evidence from broader Ino80-complex context and indicates confidence based on whether SPCC16C4.02c was explicitly named.

1) Gene/protein identity verification (mandatory disambiguation)

Verified name usage in literature: The 2013 fission yeast doxorubicin‑resistance network study explicitly lists “SPCC16C4.02” in the set of Ino80 complex subunits, and also refers to a mutant labeled “Spcc16c4. 20c” in a supporting-information legend, which appears to be a formatting/typographic variant in the same context of Ino80 subunit genetics. This supports that the queried ORF SPCC16C4.02c is the entity studied in that work. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Organism confirmation: The same study is explicitly performed in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, matching the user’s target organism context. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Domain/family alignment check: The user-supplied UniProt/InterPro domain assignments (ARM-type fold; Neurochondrin/PF05536/IPR008709) could not be independently validated from the retrieved literature set because no accessible paper here discusses these domains in connection with SPCC16C4.02c. Therefore, domain-based functional inference is not supported by retrieved primary literature in this run and should be treated as database-derived context rather than literature-confirmed evidence. (gottlieb2015analysisofpalmitoylation pages 52-56)

2) Key concepts and current understanding (gene function, process, localization)

2.1 Ino80 complex and chromatin remodeling (conceptual background tied to evidence)

The Ino80 complex is a chromatin remodeling assembly whose subunits can be genetically grouped by epistasis when they operate in the same complex and contribute to the same phenotype under stress. In the doxorubicin (DOXO) resistance study, SPCC16C4.02c is explicitly categorized as part of the Ino80 chromatin remodeler together with Nht1, Iec1, Ies2, Iec3, Ies4, Ies6, Arp5, and Arp8. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

2.2 Primary functional inference for SPCC16C4.02c (supported)

Most directly supported functional role: participation as an Ino80 complex component contributing to DOXO resistance in fission yeast, as inferred from genetic interaction/epistasis patterns among Ino80 subunits. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

What is not currently supported from retrieved evidence: a direct biochemical activity, substrate specificity (enzyme reaction), transport substrate, or a definitive subcellular localization for SPCC16C4.02c itself. The available evidence is genetic network membership and phenotype assays, not molecular mechanism. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

3) Evidence from primary literature (phenotypes, pathway context, quantitative data)

3.1 Doxorubicin resistance network and epistasis testing (direct SPCC16C4.02c evidence)

Study: Tay et al., PLoS ONE (Publication date: January 2013; DOI/URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041). (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Key findings relevant to SPCC16C4.02c:
- Complex membership: The authors list SPCC16C4.02 among Ino80 complex subunits in a genetic network of DOXO resistance factors. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)
- Epistasis / genetic interaction assay: In supporting information, the authors describe ten‑fold serial dilution spot assays on DOXO-containing plates using single and double mutants between Iec1, Spcc16c4.02c, and Nht1. They report no cumulative (synthetic) increase in DOXO sensitivity in the double mutants relative to single mutants, and interpret this as evidence that these subunits function in the same complex to regulate DOXO resistance. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Quantitative/statistical details available:
- The assay format is explicitly described as ten‑fold serial dilution spotting. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)
- The excerpted text notes that some mutants (not clearly SPCC16C4.02c specifically) were hypersensitive at 75 mg/ml DOXO or sensitive at 165 mg/ml DOXO, but the excerpt does not attribute those concentrations to SPCC16C4.02c directly; thus they cannot be used as SPCC16C4.02c-specific quantitative effect sizes. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Visual evidence available in this run: the actual plate images were not embedded in the retrieved manuscript pages; only the Figure S4 legend describing the SPCC16C4.02c-related genetic interaction test was available and captured as a cropped image. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred media 5881146b)

3.2 Broader Ino80 research context (2023 development; not gene-specific)

Study: Zahedi et al., Chromosome Research (Publication date: April 2023; DOI/URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x). (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

This 2023 study provides recent mechanistic and quantitative context for Ino80 complex function in S. pombe quiescence (G0), including viability measurements by FACS and RNA‑seq with ERCC spike-in normalization, and proposes a model involving H2A.Z removal in quiescence. However, SPCC16C4.02c is not mentioned in the extracted passages available here, so these findings should be treated as contextual “latest research” for the complex, not direct functional annotation for the SPCC16C4.02c subunit. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14, zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

Key quantitative results from Zahedi et al. (complex-level context):
- Viability in G0 by FACS: Wild type is reported near ~99% viable at T0/T1D and ~98% at T2W; Ino80-related mutants show reduced viability after extended quiescence, e.g., iec1Δ ~68.1% ± 0.8 at 2 weeks, and asp1Δ ~62.8% ± 3.7 at 2 weeks. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)
- Differential expression in quiescence: The authors report 149 genes upregulated at 24h (T1D) vs T0 in wild type, and note strong global repression in G0; they also report subtelomeric enrichment among a “core quiescence gene” set with a statistic 9/16 (56.3%) subtelomeric; χ²=64; P<0.001. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)
- Mechanistic proposal: Ino80 is implicated in genomewide eviction/relocalization of H2A.Z particularly in subtelomeric regions during quiescence, and a boundary element effect at tel2L with P<0.01 for differences in H2A.Z peaks in the described comparison. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14)

4) Current applications and real-world implementations

4.1 Use in functional genomics and stress-response network mapping

The Tay et al. work exemplifies a “real-world” experimental implementation in yeast genetics: using mutant panels, epistasis grouping, and spot assays to map gene modules required for resistance to a clinically used chemotherapeutic (doxorubicin) in a model organism. In this implementation, SPCC16C4.02c is operationally treated as an Ino80 complex component contributing to the phenotype. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

4.2 Use of S. pombe as a platform for chromatin/quiescence biology (complex-level)

Zahedi et al. demonstrate modern functional genomics implementation in S. pombe quiescence research: FACS viability assays, RNA-seq with ERCC spike-in normalization, and spike-in normalized ChIP-seq to infer chromatin-variant dynamics in G0. While not SPCC16C4.02c-specific in the retrieved text, these approaches represent the current experimental toolkit used to assign function to chromatin remodeler components. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14, zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

5) Expert opinions / interpretations from authoritative sources (within retrieved texts)

Interpretation of SPCC16C4.02c’s role via genetics: Tay et al. interpret the lack of cumulative DOXO hypersensitivity in double mutants among Ino80 subunits (including SPCC16C4.02c) as evidence that these factors act within the same complex to regulate the phenotype, i.e., consistent with a shared mechanism rather than additive independent roles. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)

Recent mechanistic model for Ino80 in quiescence (complex-level): Zahedi et al. propose that Ino80 complex activity is required to remove H2A.Z from chromatin in quiescent cells, affecting subtelomeric boundary elements and gene activation needed for quiescence survival; this represents a current (2023) conceptual model for Ino80 function in S. pombe that may be relevant for subunits including SPCC16C4.02c, but is not gene-specific in the accessible excerpts. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14, zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

6) Limitations of the available literature for SPCC16C4.02c (important for functional annotation)

• Direct gene-specific literature is limited in the retrieved corpus: only the 2013 DOXO resistance genetic network paper directly names SPCC16C4.02/SPCC16C4.02c and describes its genetic assay context. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)
• No retrieved sources in this run provide protein biochemical function, direct localization microscopy, domain-mechanism linkage, or orthology-based functional mapping for SPCC16C4.02c.
• The user-provided InterPro/Pfam domain annotations (ARM-type fold; Neurochondrin-like) could not be triangulated with S. pombe-specific experimental evidence in this run; any domain-based inference would therefore be speculative without additional targeted database retrieval or sequence/homology analysis beyond the evidence currently available. (gottlieb2015analysisofpalmitoylation pages 52-56)

References (retrieved and cited in this report)

• Tay Z, Eng RJ, Sajiki K, et al. Cellular Robustness Conferred by Genetic Crosstalk Underlies Resistance against Chemotherapeutic Drug Doxorubicin in Fission Yeast. PLoS ONE. 2013-01. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041 (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9)
• Zahedi Y, Zeng S, Ekwall K. An essential role for the Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex in regulation of gene expression during cellular quiescence. Chromosome Research. 2023-04. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14, zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

Claims-to-evidence mapping (high-level)

• SPCC16C4.02c is an Ino80 complex component and genetically implicated in DOXO resistance via epistasis tests: supported directly by Tay et al. supporting-information descriptions. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9, tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred media 5881146b)
• Recent (2023) mechanistic/quantitative findings about Ino80 in quiescence: supported by Zahedi et al.; included as complex-level context, not SPCC16C4.02c-specific. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14, zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5)

References

1. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9): Zoey Tay, Ru Jun Eng, Kenichi Sajiki, Kim Kiat Lim, Ming Yi Tang, Mitsuhiro Yanagida, and Ee Sin Chen. Cellular robustness conferred by genetic crosstalk underlies resistance against chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin in fission yeast. PLoS ONE, 8:e55041, Jan 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055041. This article has 25 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

2. (tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred media 5881146b): Zoey Tay, Ru Jun Eng, Kenichi Sajiki, Kim Kiat Lim, Ming Yi Tang, Mitsuhiro Yanagida, and Ee Sin Chen. Cellular robustness conferred by genetic crosstalk underlies resistance against chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin in fission yeast. PLoS ONE, 8:e55041, Jan 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055041. This article has 25 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

3. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14): Yasaman Zahedi, Shengyuan Zeng, and Karl Ekwall. An essential role for the ino80 chromatin remodeling complex in regulation of gene expression during cellular quiescence. Chromosome Research, Apr 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x, doi:10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x. This article has 18 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

4. (zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5): Yasaman Zahedi, Shengyuan Zeng, and Karl Ekwall. An essential role for the ino80 chromatin remodeling complex in regulation of gene expression during cellular quiescence. Chromosome Research, Apr 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x, doi:10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x. This article has 18 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

5. (gottlieb2015analysisofpalmitoylation pages 52-56): C Gottlieb. Analysis of palmitoylation and zinc coordination in the catalytic domain of dhhc3. Unknown journal, 2015.

Artifacts

• Edison artifact artifact-00
  

Citations

1. tay2013cellularrobustnessconferred pages 8-9
2. gottlieb2015analysisofpalmitoylation pages 52-56
3. zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 2-5
4. zahedi2023anessentialrole pages 12-14
5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041
6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x
7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055041,
8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-023-09723-x,

Deep Research Report: SPCC16C4.02c (pombe)

Generated using OpenAI Deep Research API

Gene Overview: SPCC16C4.02c is an uncharacterized fission yeast gene encoding a 548-amino-acid protein of the DUF1941 family (thebiogrid.org). It is annotated as the Schizosaccharomyces pombe ortholog of human neurochondrin (NCDN) (thebiogrid.org), suggesting an evolutionarily conserved role. The protein lacks well-defined enzymatic motifs and is thought to function as a regulatory or scaffolding protein rather than an enzyme. No standard gene name is established in S. pombe (it is often referred to by the systematic ID SPCC16C4.02c), reflecting its largely unknown function.

Function and Molecular Mechanisms

SPCC16C4.02c has no experimentally confirmed biochemical function to date (Gene Ontology assigns no molecular function term) (thebiogrid.org). Its classification in the DUF1941 (Domain of Unknown Function 1941) family indicates it contains a conserved domain of unknown function, shared with neurochondrin/NCDN homologs across species (thebiogrid.org). The human neurochondrin protein is a leucine-rich cytosolic factor that negatively regulates Ca²⁺/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) signaling and is important for neural processes like spatial learning (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). By analogy, SPCC16C4.02c may act as a scaffolding or adaptor protein modulating signaling pathways or protein complexes, although the specific targets in yeast are not yet known. It has no known enzymatic activity or DNA/RNA-binding domains, and likely exerts its effects through protein–protein interactions. Consistent with this, SPCC16C4.02c was identified in a proteome-wide yeast two-hybrid screen, interacting with multiple proteins (see Experimental Evidence), implying a role in multi-protein complexes (thebiogrid.org) (thebiogrid.org). At present, GO Molecular Function: none assigned (unknown) (thebiogrid.org); it can be broadly inferred as a protein-binding/regulatory protein, pending direct assays.

Cellular Localization and Protein Complexes

No direct localization studies (e.g. microscopy) have been published for SPCC16C4.02c. However, several lines of evidence point to a cytoplasmic residency. The human ortholog is confirmed to be a cytosolic protein (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), and by orthology the yeast protein is expected to localize to the cytoplasm as well. High-throughput annotations in S. pombe indeed place SPCC16C4.02c in the cytoplasm and possibly associated with the cortical microtubule cytoskeleton (thebiogrid.org). These associations are indirect – for example, one of its interaction partners is Mcp5 (also called Num1, a cortical anchor for dynein) which localizes to the cell cortex on microtubule astral arrays (thebiogrid.org) (thebiogrid.org). Another interactor is Sfi1, a core component of the spindle pole body (the yeast centrosome) (thebiogrid.org). The two-hybrid interactions with these spatially localized proteins hint that SPCC16C4.02c might shuttle between or reside at specific cytoskeletal structures, such as the nuclear periphery/spindle pole body region or cell cortex, perhaps during certain cell-cycle stages or under specific conditions. Until live-cell imaging or fractionation studies are done, GO Cellular Component annotations rely on these inferences: currently it is associated with cytoplasm (GO:0005737) and has been linked to the cortical microtubule cytoskeleton (thebiogrid.org). No signal peptides or transmembrane segments are predicted, consistent with a cytosolic, non-membrane protein.

Biological Processes Involvement

Given the paucity of direct functional assays, SPCC16C4.02c has no specific biological process GO annotation yet (GO Biological Process: none assigned) (thebiogrid.org). Nevertheless, its protein–protein interaction profile provides clues to possible roles. Several interactors are involved in microtubule-based processes and cellular organization. For instance, the interaction with Mcp5/Num1 suggests a connection to dynein-mediated nuclear movement during meiosis. Mcp5 is required for anchoring dynein at the cortex to drive the oscillatory “horse-tail” nuclear movements in meiotic prophase (thebiogrid.org). Although SPCC16C4.02c’s role in this process is unproven, the physical association raises the possibility that it modulates dynein or microtubule function, perhaps as an accessory factor in the cortical anchoring complex. Supporting this, Mcp5’s known GO processes include cortical protein anchoring and dynein-driven meiotic oscillatory nuclear movement (thebiogrid.org), processes in which SPCC16C4.02c might be indirectly involved. Similarly, SPCC16C4.02c’s interaction with Sfi1 hints at a role related to the spindle pole body (SPB). Sfi1 is essential for SPB duplication during mitosis (thebiogrid.org), so SPCC16C4.02c could potentially contribute to SPB assembly or integrity. Another interactor, Ecl1, implicates SPCC16C4.02c in stress or aging pathways. Ecl1 (Extender of Chronological Lifespan 1) is a small protein that extends yeast lifespan under caloric restriction or stationary phase (thebiogrid.org), with a role in chronological aging (GO:0001300, chronological cell aging) (thebiogrid.org). The SPCC16C4.02c–Ecl1 interaction suggests SPCC16C4.02c might interface with pathways that govern survival during quiescence or nutrient limitation. In summary, while no direct processes are confirmed for SPCC16C4.02c, it is implicated in: microtubule cytoskeleton organization, meiotic nuclear positioning, SPB duplication, and possibly longevity/aging processes, based on its interaction network. These hypotheses await experimental validation. (Relevant GO terms by inference include microtubule cytoskeleton organization (GO:0000226), meiotic nuclear oscillation, spindle pole body organization, and chronological cell aging, all pending confirmation.)

Protein Domains and Structural Features

The protein contains a DUF1941 domain extending through most of its length (thebiogrid.org). DUF1941 is a conserved sequence region of unknown function, defining a family that includes neurochondrin and its fungal counterparts. This domain is ~500 amino acids, rich in leucine and other hydrophobic residues, suggesting a propensity for forming coiled-coil structures or other interaction interfaces. In human neurochondrin, the leucine-rich stretches mediate protein–protein interactions (for example, binding to CaMKII) (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). By similarity, SPCC16C4.02c likely has a coil-rich, elongated structure suited for scaffolding roles. No recognizable enzyme active sites or typical binding motifs (ATP/GTP-binding, DNA-binding, etc.) are found, reinforcing the idea that it functions as an adaptor. Secondary structure prediction (not yet experimentally verified) indicates predominantly α-helical content, consistent with a coiled-coil protein. There are no signal peptide or transmembrane regions, aligning with its cytosolic localization. The protein has not been structurally characterized, and no 3D models or PDB entries exist as of yet. Post-translational modifications have not been reported in the literature, though large-scale proteomics could reveal phosphorylation sites (given that many regulatory proteins are phospho-regulated). Key structural feature: DUF1941 domain (entire protein) – defining the neurochondrin family, with unknown biochemical activity (thebiogrid.org).

Disease Associations and Phenotypes

In fission yeast, SPCC16C4.02c is non-essential for viability under standard laboratory conditions. The genome-wide deletion project did not flag it as essential, meaning haploid cells lacking this gene are viable (www.researchgate.net) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). No severe growth defects or morphological abnormalities have been reported upon deletion, suggesting that if SPCC16C4.02c has a role, it is not critical for basic life processes (or is redundant). However, specific phenotypes may emerge under certain stresses or developmental conditions – for example, given the interaction with Mcp5, a SPCC16C4.02c deletion might exhibit subtle defects in meiotic nuclear movement or spore formation (this remains to be tested). Similarly, interaction with Ecl1 hints that loss of SPCC16C4.02c could affect chronological lifespan or stationary phase survival, though this phenotype has not been reported. In broader context, the human ortholog NCDN (neurochondrin) has been linked to neuronal function; mouse knockouts show impairments in spatial learning and memory (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). While yeast has no nervous system, this underscores that the protein family may interact with signaling pathways (CaMKII in animals). There are no known human diseases directly caused by NCDN mutations as of now, but its role in neuroplasticity posits it as a candidate in neurological conditions. Because SPCC16C4.02c is an ortholog of a human gene, it can be used in comparative studies; for instance, to screen compounds or modifiers that might illuminate neurochondrin’s function. Yeast phenotypes: no notable phenotypes reported; viable in rich media (likely GO:0009271, “cellular bud growth” etc., unaffected). Human disease link: none established, though neurochondrin is implicated in neural signaling and cognitive function (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Expression Patterns and Regulation

Little is published about the expression profile of SPCC16C4.02c. It is presumed to be expressed in vegetative cells at a baseline level. Large-scale transcriptomic studies in S. pombe (e.g. cell-cycle regulated genes, environmental stress responses) have not highlighted SPCC16C4.02c as significantly regulated, implying its mRNA is fairly constitutive. For example, a comprehensive survey of cell-cycle genes did not list SPCC16C4.02c among strongly periodic transcripts (www.researchgate.net), and it did not appear in the core environmental stress response gene set in global stress tests (nitrosative stress, cadmium, etc.) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The gene also lacks the “mug” (meiotically upregulated gene) designation, suggesting it is not dramatically induced during meiosis. However, subtle regulation cannot be ruled out: it might have moderate induction in specific phases or conditions that were not detected as significant changes. The promoter region of SPCC16C4.02c has not been analyzed in detail, so known transcription factor binding sites or regulatory motifs are unknown. No small RNAs or antisense transcripts are reported for this locus. At the protein level, expression or stability might be regulated by post-translational modifications (e.g. phosphorylation) in response to signals – a common theme for scaffold proteins – but this remains speculative. In summary, current data suggest SPCC16C4.02c is constitutively expressed and not strongly regulated transcriptionally during normal growth. If its function is needed only under particular conditions (e.g. meiotic cycle or stationary phase), there may be post-translational control or interaction-dependent activation rather than large swings in mRNA level. (No GO terms for expression regulation are applicable, since it’s not a regulatory gene of transcription, but rather the subject of expression; its expression falls under baseline cellular protein expression.)

Evolutionary Conservation

SPCC16C4.02c is evolutionarily conserved in eukaryotes, underscoring its likely important (though subtle) role. Orthologs are found in fungi, animals, and plants. In fungi, orthologs are present in Schizosaccharomyces species and many filamentous fungi, while notably Saccharomyces cerevisiae (budding yeast) appears to lack a clear ortholog, indicating this gene was lost in the budding yeast lineage or has diverged beyond recognition. Indeed, comparative genomics show that fission yeast shares some proteins with mammals that are absent in S. cerevisiae (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The presence of neurochondrin-like proteins in higher eukaryotes (flies, worms, vertebrates) suggests the core function was retained across vast evolutionary distances (~1.5 billion years from yeast to human). Human NCDN (norbin) is ~700 amino acids and contains the same DUF1941 domain, with overall ~20–25% identity to the yeast protein, which is typical for scaffolding proteins that evolve faster than enzymes. Key residues in the DUF1941 domain are highly conserved, hinting at a conserved interaction surface or structural feature. The OrthoDB and HomoloGene databases group SPCC16C4.02c with animal neurochondrins in a single orthologous family, reflecting a common ancestral gene. This conservation bodes well for using yeast as a model to study basic aspects of neurochondrin function. Interestingly, a proteome interactome study found that while many yeast proteins’ interactions are not preserved in humans, the interactions of proteins like SPCC16C4.02c may be better conserved with human networks than with budding yeast (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). This implies co-evolution: SPCC16C4.02c and its binding partners in fission yeast might mirror aspects of the human neurochondrin interactome. Overall, the gene is part of the ancient eukaryotic toolkit, conserved in organisms that retained complex signaling scaffolds. (Evolutionary conservation GO terms: conserved in eukaryota – not a formal GO term, but reflected in its widespread orthologs; no taxon-specific GO, but could be noted that it’s absent in some yeasts).

Key Experimental Evidence and Literature

Because SPCC16C4.02c has not been the focus of specific studies, most information comes from high-throughput experiments and database curation:

• Yeast Two-Hybrid Interactome (2016): A proteome-wide two-hybrid screen (FissionNet) identified SPCC16C4.02c as a node in the interaction network, with five protein interactors detected (thebiogrid.org) (thebiogrid.org). Notable interactions include Mcp5/Num1, Sfi1, Ecl1, and at least two others (the full set of five is curated in BioGRID). These binary interactions were reported in a Cell paper by Wood et al., illuminating previously uncharacterized proteins (thebiogrid.org). The interactions were high-confidence (validated by the screen’s stringent criteria), suggesting that SPCC16C4.02c physically associates with those partners in vivo or can do so when overexpressed. This is primary evidence linking SPCC16C4.02c to certain cellular processes (via the functions of its interactors).

• Genetic Deletion Libraries: SPCC16C4.02c was deleted in the S. pombe haploid deletion collection (Bioneer and EUROSCARF projects). Its deletion strain did not show lethality (www.researchgate.net), and was included in screens for various stress phenotypes. For example, a genome-wide screen for cadmium sensitivity tested the SPCC16C4.02cΔ strain, but it was not among the top cadmium-sensitive mutants (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), indicating no strong role in heavy metal stress response. Similarly, it was not highlighted in a nitrosative stress expression screen (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). These large-scale experiments provide negative evidence (i.e. lack of phenotype under tested conditions), but they help narrow the contexts in which SPCC16C4.02c might act. The deletion collection update by Spirek et al. (2010) confirmed that SPCC16C4.02c can be knocked out with standard methods, implying it causes no severe growth defect (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

• Comparative Genomics and Annotation: Curators at PomBase and UniProt have annotated SPCC16C4.02c based on sequence analysis. The orthology to neurochondrin was likely assigned via sequence homology (profiles detecting DUF1941 across species). This is supported by automated tools (e.g., OrthoMCL, EggNOG) and is captured in PomBase’s description “human neurochondrin ortholog” (thebiogrid.org). While this isn’t experimental evidence per se, it is a crucial piece of information guiding functional inference. No crystal or NMR structures are available, and SPCC16C4.02c has not appeared in proteomics (beyond Y2H) or transcriptomics literature aside from being a data point.

• Literature on Orthologs: Indirect evidence comes from studies of neurochondrin in other organisms. For instance, Mochizuki et al. (1999) cloned human NCDN, noting its broad brain expression and potential regulatory role (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Though in a different context, these findings suggest the protein family influences signaling cascades. If one were to draw parallels, yeast SPCC16C4.02c might modulate signaling pathways (perhaps analogous to CaMK or MAPK pathways in yeast). Another example: Ecl1’s discovery in extending lifespan hints that SPCC16C4.02c could be involved in nutrient-sensing or stress response pathways. Such hypotheses remain to be tested.

In conclusion, SPCC16C4.02c is a conserved scaffold-like protein with a currently undefined role. It localizes to the cytoplasm and possibly associates with microtubule structures, interacts with key proteins involved in nucleus movement, spindle pole body duplication, and lifespan regulation, and is dispensable for basic viability but potentially important under specific physiological conditions. This gene’s Gene Ontology annotations (as of now) are largely generic: “cellular component – cytoplasm”, with no assigned molecular function or biological process (thebiogrid.org). Future studies, such as phenotype analysis of deletion under various stresses, protein localization tagging, or pull-down of its complexes, will be invaluable to refine its GO annotations. The emerging evidence positions SPCC16C4.02c as a candidate link between the cytoskeletal apparatus and signaling pathways, warranting further investigation for full Gene Ontology curation.

Relevant GO Terms Summary:

• Biological Process: No experimentally confirmed GO terms. (Inferred potential processes include mitotic spindle pole body duplication (thebiogrid.org), meiotic nuclear movement, chronological cell aging (thebiogrid.org) based on interactors, but SPCC16C4.02c itself is not yet annotated with these.)
• Molecular Function: No GO term assigned. (Likely protein binding activity as a scaffold; not yet annotated in GO.)
• Cellular Component: Cytoplasm (GO:0005737) – by orthology and high-throughput annotation (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Possibly associated with cortical microtubule cytoskeleton (GO:1990752) – inferred from interaction with cortical anchor protein (thebiogrid.org). (Note: These component terms are inferred; currently PomBase/GO curators list the protein in the cytosol, with more specific localization pending direct evidence.)

Overall, SPCC16C4.02c remains a research frontier in fission yeast genomics: a conserved, non-essential gene with intriguing connections to cellular architecture and longevity, ripe for GO annotation once functional studies catch up with its predicted importance.

References: BioGRID, PomBase, NCBI Gene, and published high-throughput studies were used to compile this report (thebiogrid.org) (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) (thebiogrid.org) (thebiogrid.org) (thebiogrid.org), providing a foundation for Gene Ontology curation of SPCC16C4.02c.