MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039860385 · doi:10.1002/jnr.21741

Mechanisms regulating ApTrkl, a Trk‐like receptor in Aplysia sensory neurons

2008· article· en· W2039860385 on OpenAlexafffund
Ikue Nagakura, Jake Ormond, Wayne S. Sossin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInternalizationCell biologyG protein-coupled receptorBiologyReceptorInverse agonistAplysiaTropomyosin receptor kinase CAgonistEndogenous agonistReceptor tyrosine kinaseNeuroscienceSignal transductionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Aplysia Trk-like receptor (ApTrkl) was previously shown to be involved in cell wide long-term facilitation (LTF) and activation of ERK when serotonin (5-HT) is applied to the cell soma. The current study investigated the regulation of ApTrkl by overexpressing the receptor and several variants in Aplysia sensory neuron cultures. Kinase activity-dependent constitutive activation of ApTrkl was observed mainly on the plasma membrane. These studies revealed two modes of receptor internalization: (1) kinase activity-dependent internalization and (2) 5-HT-dependent, kinase activity-independent internalization. Both modes of internalization were ligand independent, and the action of 5-HT was mediated through G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). On the other hand, methiothepin, an inverse agonist of 5-HT GPCRs activated endogenous ApTrkl to the same extent as 5-HT, suggesting a transactivation mechanism due to a novel coupling of GPCRs to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) activation that is also activated through inverse agonist binding. The neuropeptide sensorin could transiently activate ApTrkl but was not required for 5-HT-induced ApTrkl activation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207