MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037010598 · doi:10.1042/bj20041435

Subcellular distribution of GABAB receptor homo- and hetero-dimers

2005· article· en· W2037010598 on OpenAlexaff
Josée-France Villemure, Lynda Adam, Nicola Bevan, Katy L. Gearing, Sébastien Chénier, Michel Bouvier

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsEndoplasmic reticulumGolgi apparatusCell biologySubcellular localizationGABAB receptorReceptorBiologyFörster resonance energy transferSTIM1Confocal microscopyBiochemistryGABAA receptorFluorescenceCytoplasm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GBRs (GABA(B) receptors; where GABA stands for gamma-aminobutyric acid) are G-protein-coupled receptors that mediate slow synaptic inhibition in the brain and spinal cord. In vitro assays have previously demonstrated that these receptors are heterodimers assembled from two homologous subunits, GBR1 and GBR2, neither of which is capable of producing functional GBR on their own. We have used co-immunoprecipitation in combination with bioluminescence and fluorescence resonance energy transfer approaches in living cells to assess directly the interaction between GBR subunits and determine their subcellular localization. The results show that, in addition to forming heterodimers, GBR1 and GBR2 can associate as stable homodimers. Confocal microscopy indicates that, while GBR1/GBR1 homodimers are retained in the endoplasmic reticulum and endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi intermediate compartment, both GBR2/GBR2 homodimers and GBR1/GBR2 heterodimers are present at the plasma membrane. Although these observations shed new light on the assembly of GBR complexes, they raise questions about the potential functional roles of GBR1 and GBR2 homodimers.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical JournalSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207