MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098339028 · doi:10.1186/1742-4690-6-100

TRIM5α and TRIMCyp form apparent hexamers and their multimeric state is not affected by exposure to restriction-sensitive viruses or by treatment with pharmacological inhibitors

2009· article· en· W2098339028 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-Édith Nepveu-Traversy, Julie Bérubé, Lionel Berthoux

Bibliographic record

VenueRetrovirology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCapsidCytoplasmCell biologyChemistryHEK 293 cellsBiologyVirologyGeneticsVirusCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteins of the TRIM5 family, such as TRIM5alpha and the related TRIMCyp, are cytoplasmic factors that can inhibit incoming retroviruses. This type of restriction requires a direct interaction between TRIM5 proteins and capsid proteins that are part of mature, intact retroviral cores. In such cores, capsids are arranged as hexameric units. Multiple lines of evidence imply that TRIM5 proteins themselves interact with retroviral cores as multimers. Accordingly, stabilization by crosslinking agents has revealed that TRIM5alpha and TRIMCyp are present as trimers in mammalian cells. We report here that TRIM5 proteins seem to form dimers, trimers, hexamers and multimers of higher complexity in mammalian cells. The hexameric form in particular seems to be the most abundant multimer. Multimerization did not involve disulfide bridges and was not affected by infection with restriction-sensitive viruses or by treatment with the known TRIM5 inhibitors arsenic trioxide, MG132 and cyclosporine A. We conclude that TRIM5 multimerization results from more than one protein-protein interface and that it is seemingly not triggered by contact with retroviral cores.

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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetrovirologySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207