MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083994316 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m109.065813

Cathepsin B-mediated Autophagy Flux Facilitates the Anthrax Toxin Receptor 2-mediated Delivery of Anthrax Lethal Factor into the Cytoplasm

2009· article· en· W2083994316 on OpenAlexafffund
Soon-Duck Ha, Boram Ham, Jeremy Mogridge, Paul Säftig, Sheng‐Cai Lin, Sung Ouk Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAnthrax toxinCytoplasmBacillus anthracisVirulence factorBiologyCathepsin BEndosomeCell biologyToxinReceptorMicrobiologyFusion proteinVirulenceBiochemistryRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthrax lethal toxin (LeTx) is a virulence factor secreted by Bacillus anthracis and has direct cytotoxic effects on most cells once released into the cytoplasm. The cytoplasmic delivery of the proteolytically active component of LeTx, lethal factor (LF), is carried out by the transporter component, protective antigen, which interacts with either of two known surface receptors known as anthrax toxin receptor (ANTXR) 1 and 2. We found that the cytoplasmic delivery of LF by ANTXR2 was mediated by cathepsin B (CTSB) and required lysosomal fusion with LeTx-containing endosomes. Also, binding of protective antigen to ANXTR1 or -2 triggered autophagy, which facilitated the cytoplasmic delivery of ANTXR2-associated LF. We found that whereas cells treated with the membrane-permeable CTSB inhibitor CA074-Me- or CTSB-deficient cells had no defect in fusion of LC3-containing autophagic vacuoles with lysosomes, autophagic flux was significantly delayed. These results suggested that the ANTXR2-mediated cytoplasmic delivery of LF was enhanced by CTSB-dependent autophagic flux.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations71
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207