MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008755605 · doi:10.1007/s12192-010-0182-1

Characterization of plant p23-like proteins for their co-chaperone activities

2010· article· en· W2008755605 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhongming Zhang, W. Patrick Sullivan, Sara J. Felts, Bishun Deo Prasad, David O. Toft, Priti Krishna

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Stress and Chaperones · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHsp90Chaperone (clinical)ArabidopsisBiologyBiochemistryCell biologyYeastArabidopsis thalianaHeat shock proteinMutantGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small acidic protein p23 is best described as a co-chaperone of Hsp90, an essential molecular chaperone in eukaryotes. p23 binds to the ATP-bound form of Hsp90 and stabilizes the Hsp90-client protein complex by slowing down ATP turnover. The stabilizing activity of p23 was first characterized in studies of steroid receptor-Hsp90 complexes. Earlier studies of the Hsp90 chaperone complex in plants suggested that a p23-like stabilizing activity was absent in plant cell lysates. Here, we show that p23-like proteins are present in plants and are capable of binding Hsp90, but unlike human p23 and yeast ortholog Sba1, the plant p23-like proteins do not stabilize the steroid receptor-Hsp90 complexes formed in wheat germ lysate. Furthermore, these proteins do not inhibit the ATPase activity of plant Hsp90. While transcripts of Arabidopsis thaliana p23-1 and Atp23-2 were detected under normal growing conditions, those of the closely related Brassica napus p23-1 were present only after moderate heat stress. These observations suggest that p23-like proteins in plants are conserved in their binding to Hsp90 but have evolved mechanisms of action different from their yeast and animal counterparts.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Stress and ChaperonesSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207