The Role of Rhodopsin Glycosylation in Protein Folding, Trafficking, and Light-Sensitive Retinal Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several mutations in the N terminus of the G-protein-coupled receptor rhodopsin disrupt NXS/T consensus sequences for N-linked glycosylation (located at N2 and N15) and cause sector retinitis pigmentosa in which the inferior retina preferentially degenerates. Here we examined the role of rhodopsin glycosylation in biosynthesis, trafficking, and retinal degeneration (RD) using transgenic Xenopus laevis expressing glycosylation-defective human rhodopsin mutants. Although mutations T4K and T4N caused RD, N2S and T4V did not, demonstrating that glycosylation at N2 was not required for photoreceptor viability. In contrast, similar mutations eliminating glycosylation at N15 (N15S and T17M) caused rod death. Expression of T17M was more toxic than T4K to transgenic photoreceptors, further suggesting that glycosylation at N15 plays a more important physiological role than glycosylation at N2. Together, these results indicate that the structure of the rhodopsin N terminus must be maintained by an appropriate amino acid sequence surrounding N2 and may require a carbohydrate moiety at N15. The mutant rhodopsins were rendered less toxic in their dark inactive states, because RD was abolished or significantly reduced when transgenic tadpoles expressing T4K, T17M, and N2S/N15S were protected from light exposure. Regardless of their effect on rod viability, all of the mutants primarily localized to the outer segment and Golgi and showed little or no endoplasmic reticulum accumulation. Thus, glycosylation was not crucial for rhodopsin biosynthesis or trafficking. Interestingly, expression of similar bovine rhodopsin mutants did not cause rod cell death, possibly attributable to greater stability of bovine rhodopsin.
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".