MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019697237 · doi:10.1042/bj20060013

The chemical chaperone CFcor-325 repairs folding defects in the transmembrane domains of CFTR-processing mutants

2006· article· en· W2019697237 on OpenAlexafffund
Tip W. Loo, M. Claire Bartlett, Ying Wang, David M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsMutantEndoplasmic reticulumCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatorChaperone (clinical)CysteineChemical chaperoneTransmembrane proteinCell biologyChemistryProtein foldingCytoplasmWild typeBiochemistryBiophysicsBiologyUnfolded protein responseGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most patients with CF (cystic fibrosis) express a CFTR [CF TM (transmembrane) conductance regulator] processing mutant that is not trafficked to the cell surface because it is retained in the endoplasmic reticulum due to altered packing of the TM segments. CL4 (cytoplasmic loop 4) connecting TMs 10 and 11 is a 'hot-spot' for CFTR processing mutations. The chemical chaperone CFcor-325 (4-cyclohexyloxy-2-{1-[4-(4-methoxy-benezenesulphonyl)piperazin-1-yl]-ethyl}-quinazoline) rescued most CL4 mutants. To test if CFcor-325 promoted correct folding of the TMDs (TM domains), we selected two of the CL4 mutants (Q1071P and H1085R) for disulphide cross-linking analysis. Pairs of cysteine residues that were cross-linked in mature wild-type CFTR were introduced into mutants Q1071P and H1085R. The cross-linking patterns of the Q1071P or H1085R double cysteine mutants rescued with CFcor-325 were similar to those observed with mature wild-type double cysteine proteins. These results show that CFcor-325 rescued CFTR mutants by repairing the folding defects in the TMDs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical JournalSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207