MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058923441 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201304015

A G protein–coupled receptor and the intracellular synthase of its agonist functionally cooperate

2014· article· en· W2058923441 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal Binda, Samuel Génier, Andréane Cartier, Jean‐François Larrivée, Jana Staňková, Jason C. Young, Jean‐Luc Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorBiologyAgonistCell biologyReceptorIntracrineAutocrine signallingIntracellularProstaglandin D2HEK 293 cellsSignal transductionHsp90Gq alpha subunitBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Export of newly synthesized G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) remains poorly characterized. We show in this paper that lipocalin-type prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) synthase (L-PGDS) interacts intracellularly with the GPCR DP1 in an agonist-independent manner. L-PGDS promotes cell surface expression of DP1, but not of other GPCRs, in HEK293 and HeLa cells, independent of L-PGDS enzyme activity. In addition, formation of a DP1-Hsp90 complex necessary for DP1 export to the cell surface is dependent on the interaction between L-PGDS and the C-terminal MEEVD residues of Hsp90. Surprisingly, PGD2 synthesis by L-PGDS is promoted by coexpression of DP1, suggesting a possible intracrine/autocrine signaling mechanism. In this regard, L-PGDS increases the formation of a DP1-ERK1/2 complex and increases DP1-mediated ERK1/2 signaling. Our findings define a novel cooperative mechanism in which a GPCR (DP1) promotes the activity of the enzyme (L-PGDS) that produces its agonist (PGD2) and in which this enzyme in turn acts as a cofactor (of Hsp90) to promote export and agonist-dependent activity of the receptor.

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)0.002
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207