MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Damage control – a possible non‐proteolytic role for ubiquitin in limiting neurodegeneration

2001· review· en· W2072254915 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas A. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropathology and Applied Neurobiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUbiquitinNeurodegenerationProteolysisProteasomeDeubiquitinating enzymeCell biologyBiologyAutophagyProtein aggregationUbiquitin ligaseGeneticsBiochemistryMedicineGeneEnzymePathologyApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ubiquitin can be detected in the neuronal and glial inclusions that are the diagnostic hallmarks of a number of human neurodegenerative diseases. It has been assumed that the presence of ubiquitin signifies the failed attempt of the cell to remove abnormal protein structures, which have been allowed to aggregate. The burden of abnormal protein arising from genetic mutations or cumulative oxidative damage might in the course of time overwhelm the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway (whose responsibility it is to eliminate misfolded or damaged proteins). However, ubiquitin may still serve a protective purpose distinct from its role in proteolysis. The physical properties of ubiquitin are such that a surface coating of ubiquitin should preclude further growth of the aggregate, prevent non-productive interactions, and conceal the contents from detection mechanisms that might ultimately kill the cell. This 'nonstick coating' hypothesis makes predictions about the nature of the conjugated ubiquitin and the consequences of removing it.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropathology and Applied NeurobiologySame topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysFrench-language works237,207