Electrochemical Investigations into Kinase-Catalyzed Transformations of Tau Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of neurofibrillary tangles by hyperphosphorylated tau is a well-recognized hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. Resulting from malfunctioning protein kinases, hyperphosphorylated tau is unable to bind microtubules properly, causing it to self-associate and aggregate. The effects of tau phosphorylation on tau conformation and aggregation are still largely unexplored. The conformational analysis of tau and its hyperphosphorylated forms is usually performed by a variety of spectroscopic techniques, all of which require ample sample concentrations and/or volumes. Here we report on the use of surface based electrochemical techniques that allow for detection of conformational changes and orientation of tau protein as a function of tau phosphorylation by tyrosine and serine/threonine kinases. The electrochemical methods utilize 5'-γ-ferrocenyl adenosine triphosphate (Fc-ATP) derivative as a cosubstrate and tau immobilized on gold surface to probe the role of the following protein kinases: Sarcoma related kinase (Src), Abelson tyrosine kinase (Abl), tau-tubulin kinase (TTBK), proto-oncogene tyrosine protein kinase Fyn (Fyn), and glycogen synthase kinase 3-β (Gsk-3β). The single kinase and sequential kinase-catalyzed Fc-phosphorylations modulate the electrochemical signal, pointing to the dramatic changes around the Fc group in the Fc-phosphorylated tau films. The location and orientation of the Fc-group in Fc-tau film was investigated by the surface plasmon resonance based on antiferrocene antibodies. Additional surface characterization of the Fc-tau films by time-of-flight secondary ion-mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy revealed that Fc-phosphorylations influence the tau orientation and conformation on surfaces. When Fc-phosphorylations were performed in solution, the subsequently immobilized Fc-tau exhibited similar trends. This study illustrates the validity and the utility of the labeled electrochemical approach for probing the changes in protein film properties, conformation, and orientation as a function of the enzymatically catalyzed modifications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".