MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Regulation of SERCA‐Type Pumps by Phospholamban and Sarcolipin

2003· article· en· W1987601590 on OpenAlexaff
David H. MacLennan, Michio Asahi, A. Russell Tupling

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhospholambanSERCASkeletal muscleEndoplasmic reticulumChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyStimulationBiophysicsBiologyBiochemistryMedicineEnzymeATPase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both sarcolipin (SLN) and phospholamban (PLN) lower the apparent affinity of either SERCA1a or SERCA2a for Ca(2+). Since SLN and PLN are coexpressed in the heart, interactions among these three proteins were investigated. When SERCA1a or SERCA2a were coexpressed in HEK-293 cells with both SLN and PLN, superinhibition resulted. The ability of SLN to elevate the content of PLN monomers accounts, at least in part, for the superinhibitory effects of SLN in the presence of PLN. To evaluate the role of SLN in skeletal muscle, SLN cDNA was injected directly into rat soleus muscle and force characteristics were analyzed. Overexpression of SLN resulted in significant reductions in both twitch and tetanic peak force amplitude and maximal rates of contraction and relaxation and increased fatigability with repeated electrical stimulation. Ca(2+) uptake in muscle homogenates was impaired, suggesting that overexpression of SLN may reduce the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca(2+) store. SLN and PLN appear to bind to the same regulatory site in SERCA. However, in a ternary complex, PLN occupies the regulatory site and SLN binds to the exposed side of PLN and to SERCA.

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 score0.003

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations165
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207