MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041048028 · doi:10.1002/bies.10172

Reciprocal raft–receptor interactions and the assembly of adhesion complexes

2002· review· en· W2041048028 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Harris, Chi‐Hung Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCell Adhesion Molecules Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaftCell biologyLipid raftAdhesionCell adhesionCell adhesion moleculeCytoskeletonReceptorCell membraneMembraneChemistryBiologyBiophysicsSignal transductionCellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell adhesion complexes are critical for the physical coordination of cell-cell interactions and the morphogenesis of tissues and organs. Many adhesion receptors are anchored to the plasma membrane by a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) moiety and are thereby partitioned into membrane rafts. In this review, we focus on reciprocal interactions between rafts and adhesion molecules, leading to receptor clustering and raft expansion and stability. A model for a three-stage adhesion complex assembly process is also proposed. First, GPI-anchored adhesion molecules are recruited into rafts, which in turn promote receptor cis-oligomerization and thereby produce precursory complexes primed for avid trans-interactions. Second, trans-interactions of the receptors cross-link and stabilize large amalgams of rafts at sites of adhesion complex assembly. Finally, the enlarged and stabilized rafts acquire enhanced abilities to recruit the cytoskeleton and induce signaling. This process exemplifies how the domain structure of the plasma membrane can impact the function of its receptors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicCell Adhesion Molecules ResearchFrench-language works237,207