MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2038449416 · doi:10.1042/bc20050027

Membrane water transport and aquaporins: looking back

2005· article· en· W2038449416 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Agre

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiology of the Cell · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueIon Transport and Channel Regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAquaporinWater transportBiologyMembrane transportMembraneBiophysicsEnvironmental ethicsPhysiologyWater flowBiochemistryPhilosophyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Giuseppe Calamita has kindly asked me to contribute a note for the series of publications related to aquaporins. This topic has consumed my attention for more than a decade, and I am pleased that my colleagues and I were able to play a central role in the story. Those who know the history of our field are familiar with the long-standing controversy that preceded the discovery of water channels. Most scientists felt that water crossed cell membranes by simple diffusion through lipid bilayers. A small group of biophysicists and physiologists believed that diffusion was not sufficient to explain the fast transport of water in tissues such as renal tubules and red cells, and they postulated the existence of membrane water channels. These individuals were ahead of their time and their predictions inspired those of us that followed. Although several are no longer active in our field, and some have passed away, I feel that we should stop for a moment and think about the individuals whose work led to the discovery of aquaporins. The field represents the efforts of an international group of scientists. Following his predecessor, August Krogh, Hans Ussing and his colleagues in Denmark were major contributors to the problem of membrane fluid transport. Arthur K. Solomon in the U.S. was a particularly notable pioneer, and his biophysical studies of membrane water and solute transport drew attention to the field and catalysed major activities by his trainees, including Alan Verkman and others. The deaths of Ussing in 2000 and Solomon in November 2002 silenced brilliant voices who remained interested in membrane transport until their last days. However, the molecular identity of putative water channels remained elusive and caused most scientists to continue to doubt their existence. Despite widespread skepticism, many dedicated investigators pursued the water transport problem: even scientists whose home countries made their lives extremely difficult. Of note, Gheorghe Benga worked on water transport while living in Romania under conditions of cruel political repression; Mario Parisi continued his work in spite of the ‘dirty war’ that consumed his native Argentina; and Guillermo Whittembury remained focused on his research throughout decades of political instability in Venezuela. Others in more comfortable circumstances also made important advances. Amphibian epithelia were investigated by Jacques Bourget and his colleagues in France. Electron microscopy by Lelio Orci and Dennis Brown in Switzerland predicted that intracellular vesicles contained water channels that shuttled to and from the membrane as proposed by James Wade and colleagues in the U.S. Water transport by rodent kidney tubules was investigated by Mark Knepper, Jurgen Schnermann, and James Shafer in the U.S. Clinical studies of vasopressin in humans was pursued by Robert Schrier, Daniel Bichet, and their colleagues in the U.S. and Canada, as well as Sei Sasaki and his colleagues in Japan. Alan Finkelstein's definitive 1986 treatise on water channels should be regarded as an important summary of the studies that made water channels existence unquestionable. Together the efforts of these individuals and others are responsible for our field blossoming as it has. I wish to acknowledge two other individuals whose early insights, in my opinion, were pivotal to the discovery of the first water channel protein: AQP1. The serendipitous discovery that mercuric chloride reversibly inhibits red cell water permeability by Robert Macey, at the University of California at Berkeley in 1970, provided unambiguous evidence that water channel proteins exist. This was indeed opposite to the result Macey expected. I recently chatted with Bob Macey, now an Emeritus Professor at Berkeley, and we shared a special joy knowing that we contributed to a field of research that is fundamental to life. The second individual that I wish to acknowledge is John C. Parker, my attending physician during my hematology fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Although John Parker did not study water transport in his own lab, his willingness to listen to a younger scientist describe a newly identified red cell membrane protein of unknown function led to the prediction that it was the long-sought water channel. It is of some comfort to know that John's generous suggestions had already received recognition before his untimely death in 1993. Sooner or later, others would certainly have discovered the identity of the water channel, but the efforts that led to the discovery in our lab in 1991 reflected the contributions of Macey and Parker. Looking back after more than a decade, it is heartening to know that the field has experienced major advances: the aquaporin structures have been solved, aquaporins have been implicated in important human clinical disorders, and aquaporins have been shown to play essential roles in the stress responses of most other life forms. While our lab has received generous recognition, we now play only a small role in an exciting area of biology. Certainly very few membrane transport systems can boast of the advanced level of understanding represented in the fine manuscripts appearing in the series of reviews and articles that will be published in this and subsequent issues of Biology of the Cell.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,031

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,005
Communication savante0,0050,025
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,196
Écart entre enseignants0,191 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiology of the CellMême sujetIon Transport and Channel RegulationTravaux en français237 207