= Yuan Zhuang
{c}
= Y. Zhuang
{c}
{synonym}
Yuan Zhuang coauthored a 1986 study with <A. M. Weiner> that used a <compensatory base change> to investigate <RNA splicing>. Duke's institutional publication record explicitly connects the initial-only byline Y. Zhuang to Yuan Zhuang.<A compensatory base change in U1 snRNA suppresses a 5′ splice site mutation by Y. Zhuang and A. M. Weiner>[Author identity panel and published byline]{ref}
The experiment compared altered <splice donor sites> with altered <U1 small nuclear RNA>. In cells receiving the corresponding constructs, one compensating combination strongly restored donor use, whereas another gave very weak rescue. These observations supported direct <base pairing> but showed that matching the two <RNA> sequences was insufficient to guarantee productive <RNA splicing>.<A compensatory base change in U1 snRNA suppresses a 5′ splice site mutation by Y. Zhuang and A. M. Weiner>[Abstract: paired perturbations and unequal suppression at the two tested donors]{ref}
For an original quantitative illustration of rescue, suppose a hypothetical assay measures a processed fraction of $0.80$ in a reference, $0.10$ after one perturbation and $0.60$ after a compensating perturbation. The fraction of the lost response recovered would be
$$
\frac{0.60-0.10}{0.80-0.10}=\frac57\approx0.714.
$$
That is approximately $71\%$ recovery of the loss, despite a final processed fraction of $60\%$. These invented numbers illustrate why absolute processing and recovery relative to a reference answer different questions; they are not measurements from the paper.
\Image[https://scholars.duke.edu/profile-images/full/0096224.jpg]
{title=Yuan Zhuang, portrait linked from Duke's named institutional profile}
{description=<Yuan Zhuang institutional profile at Duke>[Named profile and portrait]{ref}}
Back to article page
