MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulation of GPCR activity, trafficking and localization by GPCR‐interacting proteins

2011· review· en· W2116265895 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana C. Magalhães, Henry A. Dunn, Stephen S. G. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorHeterotrimeric G proteinCell biologyBiologyGTPase-activating proteinG proteinRhodopsin-like receptorsGTPaseSignal transductionReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GPCRs represent the largest family of integral membrane proteins and were first identified as receptor proteins that couple via heterotrimeric G‐proteins to regulate a vast variety of effector proteins to modulate cellular function. It is now recognized that GPCRs interact with a myriad of proteins that not only function to attenuate their signalling but also function to couple these receptors to heterotrimeric G‐protein‐independent signalling pathways. In addition, intracellular and transmembrane proteins associate with GPCRs and regulate their processing in the endoplasmic reticulum, trafficking to the cell surface, compartmentalization to plasma membrane microdomains, endocytosis and trafficking between intracellular membrane compartments. The present review will overview the functional consequence of β‐arrestin, receptor activity‐modifying proteins (RAMPS), regulators of G‐protein signalling (RGS), GPCR‐associated sorting proteins (GASPs), Homer, small GTPases, PSD95/Disc Large/Zona Occludens (PDZ), spinophilin, protein phosphatases, calmodulin, optineurin and Src homology 3 (SH3) containing protein interactions with GPCRs. LINKED ARTICLES This article is part of a themed section on the Molecular Pharmacology of G Protein‐Coupled Receptors (GPCRs). To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2012.165.issue‐6 . To view the 2010 themed section on the same topic visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.2010.159.issue‐5/issuetoc

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations353
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PharmacologySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207