MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased phosphorylation of the NR1 subunit of the NMDA receptor following cerebral ischemia

2001· article· en· W1740998494 on OpenAlexafffund
Herman H. Cheung, Lucy Teves, M. Christopher Wallace, James W. Gurd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurochemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsPhosphorylationNMDA receptorProtein kinase CIschemiaProtein phosphorylationProtein kinase AProtein subunitHippocampal formationBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyReceptorCell biologyBiochemistryChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of transient cerebral ischemia on phosphorylation of the NR1 subunit of the NMDA receptor by protein kinase C (PKC) and protein kinase A (PKA) were investigated. Adult rats received 15 min of cerebral ischemia followed by various times of recovery. Phosphorylation was examined by immunoblotting hippocampal homogenates with antibodies that recognized NR1 phosphorylated on the PKC phosphorylation sites Ser890 and Ser896, the PKA phosphorylation site Ser897, or dually phosphorylated on Ser896 and Ser897. The phosphorylation of all sites examined increased following ischemia. The increase in phosphorylation by PKC was greater than by PKA. The ischemia-induced increase in phosphorylation was predominantly associated with the population of NR1 that was insoluble in 1% deoxycholate. Enhanced phosphorylation of NR1 by PKC and PKA may contribute to alterations in NMDA receptor function in the postischemic brain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurochemistrySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207