MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mutation of conserved aspartates affect maturation of presenilin 1 and presenilin 2 complexes

2000· article· en· W2040140395 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Yu, F. Chen, Masaki Nishimura, Harald Steiner, A Tandon, Toshitaka Kawarai, Shigeki Arawaka, A. Supala, You‐Qiang Song, Ekaterina Rogaeva, Erin Holmes, D. M. Zhang, P.Yu. Milman, Peter Fraser, Christian Haass, Peter St George‐Hyslop

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neurologica Scandinavica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular transport and secretion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresenilinMutantWild typeTransmembrane proteinBiochemistryMutationChemistryBiologyInternal medicineReceptorAlzheimer's diseaseGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presenilin (PS1 and PS2) holoproteins are transiently incorporated into low molecular weight (MW) complexes. During subsequent incorporation into a higher MW complex, they undergo endoproteolysis to generate stable N- and C-terminal fragments (NTF/CTF). Mutation of either of two conserved aspartate residues in transmembrane domains inhibits both presenilin-endoproteolysis and the proteolytic processing of APP and Notch. We show that aspartate-mutant holoprotein presenilins are not incorporated into the high molecular weight, NTF/CTF-containing complexes. Aspartate-mutant presenilin holoproteins also preclude entry of endogenous wild-type PS1/PS2 into the high molecular weight complexes, but do not affect the incorporation of wild-type holoproteins into lower molecular weight holoprotein complexes. These data suggest that the loss-of-function aspartate-mutants cause altered PS complex maturation, and argue that the functional presenilin moieties are contained in the high molecular weight presenilin NTF/CTF-containing complexes.

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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Neurologica ScandinavicaSame topicCellular transport and secretionFrench-language works237,207