MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085646162 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00146

Ancient interaction between the teneurin C-terminal associated peptides (TCAP) and latrophilin ligand-receptor coupling: a role in behavior

2015· review· en· W2085646162 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Woelfle, Andrea L. D’Aquila, Téa Pavlović, Mia Husić, David A. Lovejoy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorBiologyTransmembrane proteinReceptorCell biologyNeuroscienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teneurins are multifunctional transmembrane proteins that are found in all multicellular animals and exist as four paralogous forms in vertebrates. They are highly expressed in the central nervous system, where they exert their effects, in part, by high-affinity binding to latrophilin (LPHN), a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) related to the adhesion and secretin GPCR families. The teneurin C-terminal associated peptides (TCAPs) are encoded by the terminal exon of all four teneurins, where TCAPs 1 and 3 are independently transcribed as soluble peptides, and TCAPs 2 and 4 remain tethered to their teneurin proprotein. Synthetic TCAP-1 interacts with LPHN, with an association with β-dystroglycan, to induce a tissue-dependent signal cascade to modulate cytoskeletal dynamics. TCAP-1 reduces stress-induced behaviors associated with anxiety, addiction and depression in a variety of models, in part, by regulating synaptic plasticity. Therefore, the TCAP-1-teneurin-LPHN interaction represents a novel receptor-ligand model and may represent a key mechanism underlying the association of behavior and neurological conditions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207