MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024814760 · doi:10.1021/pr200564g

MAP1B and Clathrin Are Novel Interacting Partners of the Giant Cyto-linker Dystonin

2011· article· en· W2024814760 on OpenAlexaff
Kunal Bhanot, Kevin G. Young, Rashmi Kothary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotubuleCell biologyClathrinCytoskeletonBiologyImmunoprecipitationInteractomeTubulinProtein–protein interactionGene isoformMicrotubule-associated proteinTau proteinEndocytosisBiochemistryMedicineAlzheimer's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dystonin is a large multidomain cytoskeletal-associated protein that plays an essential role in the nervous system. Loss of dystonin results in neuromuscular dysfunction and early death in a mouse mutant called dystonia musculorum. Conserved among related proteins, the plakin domain is a defining feature of all major dystonin isoforms, yet its interactions have not been explored in detail. The purpose of the present study was to identify novel interacting partners of the plakin domain of the neuronal isoform of dystonin (dystonin-a). Newly identified interacting proteins discovered through a pull-down assay were validated using coimmunoprecipitation, coimmunofluorescence, and proximity ligation assays. Microtubule associated protein 1B (MAP1B), a microtubule stabilizing protein, and clathrin heavy chain, the major component of the clathrin triskelion, were identified as interaction partners for dystonin-a. Increased levels of phosphorylated MAP1B suggest a misregulation of MAP1B and a potentially novel component of the dt pathology. This work will further facilitate our understanding of how cytoskeletal proteins can affect and regulate neurodegenerative disorders.

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)0.000
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 score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207