Differential Regulation of B-Raf Isoforms by Phosphorylation and AutoinhibitoryMechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The B-Raf proto-oncogene encodes several isoforms resulting from alternative splicing in the hinge region upstream of the kinase domain. The presence of exon 8b in the B2-Raf(8b) isoform and exon 9b in the B3-Raf(9b) isoform differentially regulates B-Raf by decreasing and increasing MEK activating and oncogenic activities, respectively. Using different cell systems, we investigated here the molecular basis of this regulation. We show that exons 8b and 9b interfere with the ability of the B-Raf N-terminal region to interact with and inhibit the C-terminal kinase domain, thus modulating the autoinhibition mechanism in an opposite manner. Exons 8b and 9b are flanked by two residues reported to down-regulate B-Raf activity upon phosphorylation. The S365A mutation increased the activity of all B-Raf isoforms, but the effect on B2-Raf(8b) was more pronounced. This was correlated to the high level of S365 phosphorylation in this isoform, whereas the B3-Raf(9b) isoform was poorly phosphorylated on this residue. In contrast, S429 was equally phosphorylated in all B-Raf isoforms, but the S429A mutation activated B2-Raf(8b), whereas it inhibited B3-Raf(9b). These results indicate that phosphorylation on both S365 and S429 participate in the differential regulation of B-Raf isoforms through distinct mechanisms. Finally, we show that autoinhibition and phosphorylation represent independent but convergent mechanisms accounting for B-Raf regulation by alternative splicing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".