MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051603653 · doi:10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01099-1

SCN5A mutation (T1620M) causing Brugada syndrome exhibits different phenotypes when expressed in <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes and mammalian cells

2000· article· en· W2051603653 on OpenAlexaff
Ghayath Baroudi, Eric Carbonneau, Valérie Pouliot, Mohamed Chahine

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCegep de Sainte Foy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrugada syndromeXenopusSodium channelMutationNav1.5BiologyPhenotypeCell biologyVentricular fibrillationG alpha subunitInternal medicineMolecular biologyEndocrinologyGeneticsProtein subunitGeneChemistryMedicineSodium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brugada syndrome is a hereditary cardiac disease causing abnormal ST segment elevation in the ECG, right bundle branch block, ventricular fibrillation and sudden death. In this study we characterized a new mutation in the SCN5A gene (T1620M), causing the Brugada syndrome. The mutated channels were expressed in both Xenopus leavis oocytes and in mammalian tsA201 cells with and without the beta-subunit and studied using the patch clamp technique. Opposite phenotypes were observed depending on the expression system. T1620M mutation led to a faster recovery from inactivation and a shift of steady-state inactivation to more positive voltages when expressed in Xenopus oocytes. However, using the mammalian expression system no effect on steady-state inactivation was observed, but this mutation led to a slower recovery from inactivation. Our finding supports the idea that the slower recovery from inactivation of the cardiac sodium channels seen in our mammalian expression system could decrease the density of sodium channels during the cardiac cycle explaining the in vivo arrhythmogenesis in patients with Brugada syndrome.

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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations70
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207