MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135668812 · doi:10.1002/path.2414

Expression of G protein‐coupled receptor kinase 4 is associated with breast cancer tumourigenesis

2008· article· en· W2135668812 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Matsubayashi, Masakatsu Takanashi, Kosuke Oikawa, Koji Fujita, Masami Tanaka, Mingli Xu, Antonio De Blasi, Michel Bouvier, Masao Kinoshita, Masahiko Kuroda, K Mukai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan Health Sciences Foundation
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptor kinaseG protein-coupled receptorPhosphorylationKinaseCell biologyCancer researchMAPK/ERK pathwayProtein kinase ABiologySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G-protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs) comprise a family of seven mammalian serine/threonine protein kinases that phosphorylate and regulate agonist-bound, activated, G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). GRKs and beta-arrestins are key participants in the canonical pathways leading to phosphorylation-dependent GPCR desensitization, endocytosis, intracellular trafficking and resensitization. Here we show that GRK4 isoforms are expressed in human breast cancer but not in normal epithelia. In addition, GRK4-over-expressing cells activated the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) mediated by ERK 1/2 and JNK phosphorylation in breast cancer-derived cell lines. Furthermore, suppression of beta-arrestins decreased GRK4-stimulated ERK 1/2 or JNK phosphorylations. These data indicate that high-level expression of GRK4 may activate MAPK signalling pathways mediated by beta-arrestins in breast cancer cells, suggesting that GRK4 may be implicated in breast cancer carcinogenesis.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PathologySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207