Mutant Huntingtin N-terminal Fragments of Specific Size Mediate Aggregation and Toxicity in Neuronal Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huntingtin proteolysis is implicated in Huntington disease pathogenesis, yet, the nature of huntingtin toxic fragments remains unclear. Huntingtin undergoes proteolysis by calpains and caspases within an N-terminal region between amino acids 460 and 600. We have focused on proteolytic steps producing shorter N-terminal fragments, which we term cp-1 and cp-2 (distinct from previously described cp-A/cp-B). We used HEK293 cells to express the first 511 residues of huntingtin and further define the cp-1 and cp-2 cleavage sites. Based on epitope mapping with huntingtin-specific antibodies, we found that cp-1 cleavage occurs between residues 81 and 129 of huntingtin. Affinity and size exclusion chromatography were used to further purify huntingtin cleavage products and enrich for the cp-1/cp-2 fragments. Using mass spectrometry, we found that the cp-2 fragment is generated by cleavage of huntingtin at position Arg(167). This site was confirmed by deletion analysis and specific detection with a custom-generated cp-2 site neo-epitope antibody. Furthermore, alterations of this cleavage site resulted in a decrease in toxicity and an increase in aggregation of huntingtin in neuronal cells. These data suggest that cleavage of huntingtin at residue Arg(167) may mediate mutant huntingtin toxicity in Huntington disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".