Compartmentalization of epidermal growth factor receptor in liver plasma membrane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced compartmentalization and activation of the EGF receptor (EGFR) in rat liver plasma membrane (PM) raft subfractions prepared by three different biochemical methods previously developed to characterize the composition of membrane rafts. Only detergent-resistant membranes (DRMs) possessed the basic characteristics attributed to membrane rafts. Following the administration of a low dose of EGF (1 microg/100 g BW) the content of EGFR in PM-DRMs did not change significantly; whereas after a higher dose of EGF (5 microg/100 g BW) we observed a rapid and marked disappearance of EGFR (around 80%) from both PM and DRM fractions. Interestingly, following the administration of either a low or high dose of EGF, the pool of EGFR in the PM-DRM fraction became highly Tyr-phosphorylated. In accordance with the higher level of EGFR Tyr-Phosphorylation, EGF induced an augmented recruitment of Grb2 and Shc proteins to PM-DRMs compared with whole PM. Furthermore neither high nor low doses of EGF affected the caveolin content in DRMs and PM. These observations suggest that EGFR located in DRMs are competent for signaling, and non-caveolae PM rafts are involved in the compartmentalization and internalization of the EGFR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".