MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992739435 · doi:10.1159/000094084

Tracing the Evolution and Function of the Trk Superfamily of Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

2006· review· en· W1992739435 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne S. Sossin

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrk receptorReceptor tyrosine kinaseBiologyTropomyosin receptor kinase CReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesROR1ReceptorCell biologyTyrosine kinaseFunctional divergenceProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase SrcSignal transductionPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorBiochemistryNeurotrophinGeneGene familyGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most growth factors and their receptors have been strongly conserved during evolution. In contrast, Trks (Tropomyosin-related kinases) and related receptors in the Trk superfamily, Rors (receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptors), Musks (muscle specific kinases) and Ddrs (discoidin domain receptor family), appear to be ancient, but their function has been lost in multiple lineages and the roles for the receptors have been modified over time. We will trace the evolution of the Trk superfamily and discuss possible conserved functional roles, including a unifying theme of target recognition by growing axons. We present an analogy between the evolution of G-protein-coupled receptors and receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), proposing that an important driving force for the divergence of receptors is the ease of divergence of their ligands.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207