MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516216573 · doi:10.1002/pmic.201500143

Proteomic profiling of the extracellular matrix (slime sheath) of <i>Dictyostelium discoideum</i>

2015· article· en· W1516216573 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert J. Huber, Danton H. O’Day

Bibliographic record

VenuePROTEOMICS · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDictyostelium discoideumMulticellular organismBiologyExtracellular matrixCell biologyCellular differentiationRibosomal proteinBiochemistryCellGeneRNARibosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dictyostelium discoideum has historically served as a model system for cell and developmental biology, but recently it has gained increasing attention as a model for the study of human diseases. The extracellular matrix (ECM) of this eukaryotic microbe serves multiple essential functions during development. It not only provides structural integrity to the moving multicellular pseudoplasmodium, or slug, it also provides components that regulate cell motility and differentiation. An LC/MS/MS analysis of slug ECM revealed the presence of a large number of proteins in two wild-type strains, NC4 and WS380B. GO annotation identified a large number of proteins involved in some form of binding (e.g. protein, polysaccharide, cellulose, carbohydrate, ATP, cAMP, ion, lipid, vitamin), as well as proteins that modulate metabolic processes, cell movement, and multicellular development. In addition, this proteomic analysis identified numerous expected (e.g. EcmA, EcmD, discoidin I, discoidin II), as well as unexpected (e.g. ribosomal and nuclear proteins) components. These topics are discussed in terms of the structure and function of the ECM during the development of this model amoebozoan and their relevance to ongoing biomedical research.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROTEOMICSSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207