MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084520662 · doi:10.4161/cc.9.5.10915

Phosphorylation of Ser72 does not regulate the ubiquitin ligase activity and subcellular localization of Skp2

2010· article· en· W2084520662 on OpenAlexafffund
Christel Boutonnet, Pierre‐Luc Tanguay, Catherine Julien, Geneviève Rodier, Philippe Coulombe, Sylvain Meloche

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSKP2Ubiquitin ligaseBiologyUbiquitinPhosphorylationCell biologyCell division control protein 4Subcellular localizationF-box proteinSkp1DNA ligaseBiochemistryEnzymeCytoplasm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skp2 is the substrate binding subunit of the SCF(Skp2) ubiquitin ligase, which plays a key role in the regulation of cell cycle progression. The activity of Skp2 is regulated by the APC(Cdh1), which targets Skp2 for degradation in early G(1) and prevent premature S phase entry. Overexpression of Skp2 leads to dysregulation of the cell cycle and is commonly observed in human cancers. We have previously shown that Skp2 is phosphorylated on Ser64 and Ser72 in vivo, and that these modifications regulate its stability. Recently, two studies have proposed a role for Ser72 phosphorylation in the cytosolic relocalization of Skp2 and in the assembly and activity of SCF(Skp2) ubiquitin ligase complex. We have revisited this question and analyzed the impact of Ser72 phosphorylation site mutations on the biological activity and subcellular localization of Skp2. We show here that phosphorylation of Ser72 does not control Skp2 binding to Skp1 and Cul1, has no influence on SCF(Skp2) ubiquitin ligase activity, and does not affect the subcellular localization of Skp2 in a panel of cell lines.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207