Are All Multisubunit Tethering Complexes Bona Fide Tethers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, a number of multisubunit tethering complexes (MTCs) have been described that function in membrane trafficking events: TRAPP I, TRAPP II, TRAPP III, COG, HOPS, CORVET, Dsl1, GARP and exocyst. On the basis of structural and sequence similarities, they have been categorized as complexes associated with tethering containing helical rods (CATCHR) (Dsl1, COG, GARP and exocyst) or non-CATCHR (TRAPP I, II and III, HOPS and CORVET) complexes (Yu IM, Hughson FM. Tethering factors as organizers of intracellular vesicular traffic. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2010;26:137-156). Both acronyms (CATCHR and MTC) imply these complexes tether opposing membranes to facilitate fusion. The main question we will address is: have these complexes been formally demonstrated to function as tethers? If the answer is no, then is it premature or even correct to refer to them as tethers? In this commentary, we will argue that the vast majority of MTCs have not been demonstrated to act as a tether. We propose that a distinction between the terms tether and tethering factor be considered to address this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".