Proteasome inhibition induces reversible impairments in protein synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteasome inhibition occurs during normal aging and in a variety of age-related diseases, with inhibition of proteasome function sufficient to induce physiological and pathological alterations observed in each of these conditions. It is presumed that proteasome inhibition induces cellular alterations by promoting rapid protein accumulation, as the direct result of impairments in protein removal, which assumes protein synthesis remains relatively unchanged during proteasome inhibition. We conducted experimentation using established proteasome inhibitors and primary rat neuron cultures in order to elucidate whether proteasome inhibition had any effect on neuronal protein synthesis. Proteasome inhibition impaired neuronal protein synthesis, with concentrations of inhibitor necessary to significantly inhibit protein synthesis similar to the concentrations necessary to induce subsequent neuron death. The inhibition of protein synthesis was reversible during the first 6 h of treatment, with the neurotoxicity of proteasome inhibition reversible during the first 12 h of treatment. These studies are the first to demonstrate a potentially important interplay between the proteasome and protein synthesis in neurons, and the first to identify that some effects of proteasome inhibition are reversible in neurons. Together these findings have important implications for understanding proteasome inhibition as a potential contributor to aging and age-related disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".