MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What lies ahead for the proprotein convertases?

2011· review· en· W1618025150 on OpenAlexafffund
Nabil G. Seidah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular transport and secretion
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsProprotein ConvertasesFurinCell biologyBiologyProteolysisReceptorEndosomeGolgi apparatusProprotein convertaseInternalizationChemistryLDL receptorBiochemistryLipoproteinEndoplasmic reticulumCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited proteolysis of secretory proteins is performed by one or more of the nine-membered proprotein convertase (PC) family: PC1/3, PC2, furin, PC4, PC5/6, PACE4, PC7, SKI-1/S1P, and PCSK9. The first seven proteinases cleave proproteins at single or pairs of basic residues in the Golgi, secretory granules, cell surface, or endosomes. These comprise neural and endocrine hormones and their release/inhibiting factors, growth factors and their receptors, and adhesion molecules. The regulated neural and endocrine PC1/3 and PC2 generate multiple peptide hormones and neuropeptides, including the family of hypothalamic-releasing/inhibiting factors. The ubiquitously expressed furin is the principal PC that processes constitutively secreted proteins. PC4 controls testicular and ovarian physiology. PC5/6 and PACE4 bind heparin sulfate proteoglycans and play critical roles during development by regulating body axis and polarity determinants. PC7 exerts unique functions in the brain. The members SKI-1/S1P and PCSK9 do not require a basic residue at the cleavage site and play major roles in the regulation of cholesterol/lipid homeostasis. In vivo studies demonstrated that PCs play major roles in health and disease states.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicCellular transport and secretionFrench-language works237,207