MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140382887 · doi:10.1073/pnas.052017699

Notch receptor cleavage depends on but is not directly executed by presenilins

2002· article· en· W2140382887 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshihito Taniguchi, Helena Karlström, Johan Lundkvist, Tomohiko Mizutani, Akira Otaka, Monica Vestling, Alan Bernstein, Dorit Donoviel, Urban Lendahl, Tasuku Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCancerfonden
KeywordsPresenilinCleavage (geology)IntracellularCell biologyNotch signaling pathwayAmyloid precursor protein secretaseBiologyNotch proteinsChemistrySignal transductionAmyloid precursor proteinInternal medicineMedicineAlzheimer's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notch receptors undergo three distinct proteolytic cleavages during maturation and activation. The third cleavage occurs within the plasma membrane and results in the release and translocation of the intracellular domain into the nucleus to execute Notch signaling. This so-called gamma-secretase cleavage is under the control of presenilins, but it is not known whether presenilins themselves carry out the cleavage or whether they act by means of yet-unidentified gamma-secretase(s). In this article, we show that Notch intracellular cleavage in intact cells completely depends on presenilins. In contrast, partial purification of the Notch cleavage activity reveals an activity, which is present only in protein extracts from presenilin-containing cells, and which does not comigrate with presenilin. This finding provides evidence for the existence of a specific Notch-processing activity, which is physically distinct from presenilins. We conclude from these experiments that presenilins are critically required for Notch intracellular cleavage but are not themselves directly mediating the cleavage.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations54
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207