MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126837779 · doi:10.1242/jcs.113.12.2267

The central matrix loop drives import of uncoupling protein 1 into mitochondria

2000· article· en· W2126837779 on OpenAlexaff
Enrico Schleiff, Heidi M. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMitochondrionUncoupling proteinCell biologyMatrix (chemical analysis)Uncoupling AgentsLoop (graph theory)Biochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uncoupling protein (UCP1) is a carrier protein of the inner mitochondrial membrane spanning the bilayer six times. It does not contain a typical amino-terminal targeting signal and the mechanism of targeting and insertion is unknown. Here we focus on the biogenesis of UCP1 by analysing the import signals contained within the three repeated units of the protein. The amino-terminal third of the protein can mediate insertion into the outer membrane and therefore acts as artificial targeting signal when fused to DHFR. However, in the context of full-length UCP, the targeting information contained within the first repeated unit is not sufficient to trigger insertion into the outer membrane. Deletion of either the first or third repeated unit from UCP1 did not reduce import into the inner membrane and bound to the outer membrane receptor protein hTom20 with the characteristics of full-length UCP1. Deletion of the second repeat of UCP1 completely abolished all import into the mitochondria. Consistent with this, the central repeat alone was efficiently imported to the inner membrane and bound hTom20 with the characteristics of UCP1. We conclude that the site for binding hTom20 is within the central repeat and that this domain contains the complete targeting signal for directing UCP1 to the inner membrane.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207