MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006917076 · doi:10.1002/jcp.21122

Differential calreticulin expression affects focal contacts via the calmodulin/CaMK II pathway

2007· article· en· W2006917076 on OpenAlexaff
Éva Szabó, Sylvia Papp, Michał Opas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalreticulinCalmodulinCell biologyDifferential (mechanical device)ChemistryBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsEndoplasmic reticulumEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calreticulin is an ER calcium-storage protein, which influences gene expression and cell adhesion. In this study, we analysed the differences in adhesive properties of calreticulin under- and overexpressing fibroblasts in relation to the calmodulin- and calcium/calmodulin-dependent kinase II (CaMK II)-dependent signalling pathways. Cells stably underexpressing calreticulin had elevated expression of calmodulin, activated CaMK II, activated ERK and activated c-src. Inhibition of calmodulin by W7, and CaMK II by KN-62, caused the otherwise weekly adhesive calreticulin underexpressing cells to behave like the overexpressing cells, via induction of increased cell spreading. Increased vinculin, activated paxillin, activated focal adhesion kinase and fibronectin levels were observed upon inhibition of either the calmodulin or the CaMK II signalling pathways, which was accompanied by an increase in cell spreading and focal contact formation. Both KN-62 and W7 treatment increased cell motility in underexpressing cells, but W7 treatment led to loss of directionality. Thus, both the calmodulin and CaMK II signalling pathways influence cellular spreading and motility, but subtle differences exist in their distal effects on motility effectors.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular PhysiologySame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207