MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077361634 · doi:10.1126/science.1140114

Combinatorial ShcA Docking Interactions Support Diversity in Tissue Morphogenesis

2007· article· en· W2077361634 on OpenAlexaff
W. Rod Hardy, Lingying Li, Zhi Wang, Jiří Šedý, J. Paul Fawcett, Eric Frank, Jan Kučera, Tony Pawson

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsDocking (animal)Signal transducing adaptor proteinSH2 domainPhosphotyrosine-binding domainBiologyCell biologyGRB2TyrosineProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase SrcPhosphorylationBiochemistryChemistryComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in protein-protein interactions may allow polypeptides to perform unexpected regulatory functions. Mammalian ShcA docking proteins have amino-terminal phosphotyrosine (pTyr) binding (PTB) and carboxyl-terminal Src homology 2 (SH2) domains, which recognize specific pTyr sites on activated receptors, and a central region with two phosphorylated tyrosine-X-asparagine (pYXN) motifs (where X represents any amino acid) that each bind the growth factor receptor-bound protein 2 (Grb2) adaptor. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that ShcA may signal through both pYXN-dependent and -independent pathways. We show that, in mice, cardiomyocyte-expressed ShcA directs mid-gestational heart development by a PTB-dependent mechanism that does not require the pYXN motifs. In contrast, the pYXN motifs are required with PTB and SH2 domains in the same ShcA molecule for the formation of muscle spindles, skeletal muscle sensory organs that regulate motor behavior. Thus, combinatorial differences in ShcA docking interactions may yield multiple signaling mechanisms to support diversity in tissue morphogenesis.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207