Proteolytic Processing of the p75 Neurotrophin Receptor and Two Homologs Generates C-Terminal Fragments with Signaling Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 75 kDa neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR) and two neurotrophin receptor homologs (NRH1, NRH2) constitute a subfamily of the nerve growth factor/tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily. NRH1 coexists with p75NTR in fish, amphibians, and birds but is absent in mammals, whereas NRH2 exists only in mammals. Unlike p75NTR and NRH1, NRH2 lacks a canonical extracellular ligand binding domain. The similarity of NRH2 to the product of metalloproteinase cleavage of p75NTR prompted us to examine the cleavage of p75NTR in greater detail. p75NTR, NRH1, and NRH2 undergo multiple proteolytic cleavages that ultimately release cytoplasmic fragments. For p75NTR, cleavage in the extracellular domain by a PMA-inducible membrane metalloproteinase is followed by cleavage within or near the transmembrane domain, releasing the intracellular domain into the cytoplasm. This processing resembles the alpha- and gamma-secretase-mediated processing of beta-amyloid precursor protein and the similar processing of Notch. Although neurotrophins did not regulate p75NTR processing, the alpha- and gamma-secretase-mediated cleavage of p75 is modulated by receptor tyrosine kinases (Trks) TrkA and TrkB but not TrkC. Surprisingly, although NRH1 and NRH2 also undergo proteolytic cytoplasmic release of intracellular domains, a different protease mediates the cleavage. Furthermore, whereas the p75NTR soluble intracellular domain accumulates only in the presence of proteasome inhibitors, the equivalent fragment of NRH2 is stable and localizes in the nucleus. Because soluble intracellular domains of p75NTR and NRH2 were found to activate NF-kappaB in concert with TNF receptor associated factor 6 (TRAF6), we propose that cleavage of these proteins may serve conserved cytoplasmic and nuclear signaling functions through distinct proteases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".