PrP<sup>C</sup>Homodimerization Stimulates the Production of PrP<sup>C</sup>Cleaved Fragments PrPN1 and PrPC1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An endoproteolytic cleavage termed α-cleavage between residues 111/112 is a characteristic feature of the cellular prion protein (PrP(C)). This cleavage generates a soluble N-terminal fragment (PrPN1) and a glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored C-terminal fragment (PrPC1). Independent studies demonstrate that modulating PrP(C) α-cleavage represents a potential therapeutic strategy in prion diseases. The regulation of PrP(C) α-cleavage is unclear. The only known domain that is essential for the α-cleavage to occur is a hydrophobic domain (HD). Importantly, the HD is also essential for the formation of PrP(C) homodimers. To explore the role of PrP(C) homodimerization on the α-cleavage, we used a well described inducible dimerization strategy whereby a chimeric PrP(C) composed of a modified FK506-binding protein (Fv) fused with PrP(C) and termed Fv-PrP is incubated in the presence of a dimerizer AP20187 ligand. We show that homodimerization leads to a considerable increase of PrP(C) α-cleavage in cultured cells and release of PrPN1 and PrPC1. Interestingly, enforced homodimerization increased PrP(C) levels at the plasma membrane, and preventing PrP(C) trafficking to the cell surface inhibited dimerization-induced α-cleavage. These observations were confirmed in primary hippocampal neurons from transgenic mice expressing Fv-PrP. The proteases responsible for the α-cleavage are still elusive, and in contrast to initial studies we confirm more recent investigations that neither ADAM10 nor ADAM17 are involved. Importantly, PrPN1 produced after PrP(C) homodimerization protects against toxic amyloid-β (Aβ) oligomers. Thus, our results show that PrP(C) homodimerization is an important regulator of PrP(C) α-cleavage and may represent a potential therapeutic avenue against Aβ toxicity in Alzheimer's 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".