MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102598172 · doi:10.2478/s11658-014-0201-9

p600 stabilizes microtubules to prevent the aggregation of CaMKIIα during photoconductive stimulation

2014· article· en· W2102598172 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Belzil, Tim Ramos, Kamon Sanada, Michael A. Colicos, Minh Dang Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular & Molecular Biology Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotubuleDepolarizationBiophysicsStimulationP600Cell biologyGlutamate receptorChemistryStaurosporineBiologyNeuroscienceProtein kinase ABiochemistryPhosphorylationReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large microtubule-associated/Ca(2+)-signalling protein p600 (also known as UBR4) is required for hippocampal neuronal survival upon Ca(2+) dyshomeostasis induced by glutamate treatment. During this process, p600 prevents aggregation of the Ca(2+)/calmodulin-dependent kinase IIα (CaMKIIα), a proxy of neuronal death, via direct binding to calmodulin in a microtubuleindependent manner. Using photoconductive stimulation coupled with live imaging of single neurons, we identified a distinct mechanism of prevention of CaMKIIα aggregation by p600. Upon direct depolarization, CaMKIIα translocates to microtubules. In the absence of p600, this translocation is interrupted in favour of a sustained self-aggregation that is prevented by the microtubule-stabilizing drug paclitaxel. Thus, during photoconductive stimulation, p600 prevents the aggregation of CaMKIIα by stabilizing microtubules. The effectiveness of this stabilization for preventing CaMKIIα aggregation during direct depolarization but not during glutamate treatment suggests a model wherein p600 has two modes of action depending on the source of cytosolic Ca(2+).

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular & Molecular Biology LettersSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207