MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015482304 · doi:10.1139/o00-070

Effect of oxidative stress on stability and structure of neurofilament proteins

2000· article· en· W2015482304 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sylvie Gélinas, Camille Chapados, Marc Beauregard, Isabelle Gosselin, Maria‐Grazia Martinoli

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurofilamentCircular dichroismBiophysicsChemistryRandom coilOxidative stressBiochemistryBiologyImmunologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurofilament proteins are highly phosphorylated molecules in the axonal compartment of the adult nervous system. We report the structural analysis of neurofilament proteins after oxidative damage. SDS-PAGE, immunoblotting, circular dichroism, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy were used to investigate the relative sensitivity of neurofilaments to oxidative stress and to identify changes in their molecular organization. An ascorbate-Fe+3-O2 buffer system as well as catechols were used to generate free radicals on a substrate of phosphorylated and dephosphorylated neurofilaments. By Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy and circular dichroism, we established that the neurofilament secondary structure is mainly composed of alpha-helices and that after free radical damage of the peptide backbone of neurofilaments, those helices are partly modified into beta-sheet and random coil structures. These characteristic reorganizations of the neurofilament structure after oxidative exposure suggest that free radical activity might play an important role in the biogenesis of the cytoplasmic inclusions found in several neurodegenerative diseases.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations48
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207