MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058827293 · doi:10.1021/pr9006987

Identification of Novel Interacting Protein Partners of SMN Using Tandem Affinity Purification

2010· article· en· W2058827293 on OpenAlexafffund
Dina Shafey, Justin G. Boyer, Kunal Bhanot, Rashmi Kothary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpinal muscular atrophyTandem affinity purificationBiologyCell biologyMotor neuronHEK 293 cellsMolecular biologyComputational biologyAffinity chromatographyGeneticsBiochemistryNeuroscienceGeneSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in the survival motor neuron (SMN) gene cause spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a neuromuscular disease associated with muscle weakness that progresses to paralysis, respiratory distress, and ultimately death. Both neurons and muscle are severely affected in this disease. Tandem affinity purification (TAP) has emerged as a useful tool for studying protein complexes in vitro. We have used this purification system to discover novel SMN interacting partners in C2C12 muscle and PC12 neuronal cells. To do so, we fused a TAP-tag, consisting of a HIS hexamer and FLAG epitope separated by the tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease cleavage site, to either the N- or C-terminal region of SMN. Interestingly, the profile of SMN interacting proteins varies depending on the cell type and stage. We have identified a number of novel SMN interacting proteins in both C2C12 and PC12 cells, and from among these we have validated Annexin II and myosin regulatory light chain (MRLC). The discovery of these proteins will lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of SMA.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207