MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145464838 · doi:10.1186/1476-511x-6-24

Expression of both N- and C-terminal GFP tagged huCD36 and their discrepancy in OxLDL and pRBC binding on CHO cells

2007· article· en· W2145464838 on OpenAlexaff
Jianshe Zhang, Ian Crandall

Bibliographic record

VenueLipids in Health and Disease · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular transport and secretion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD36Green fluorescent proteinRecombinant DNACell biologyChinese hamster ovary cellGlycoproteinChemistryPlasma protein bindingMolecular biologyBiologyBinding proteinBiochemistryGeneReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CD36, an 88 kDa membrane glycoprotein, is found in several cell types and it has been characterized to have two hydrophobic domains at their N- and C-termini which are essential for protein folding and targeting. In this study, we first tagged the green fluorescent protein (GFP) to both the N- and C-termini of huCD36 and investigated their cellular expression and influences on lipoprotein and plasmodium falciparium parasitized erythrocytes (pRBC) binding. Our work revealed that huCD36 proteins are expressed normally irrespective of the GFP tag presence at either the N- or C-termini. However, the two recombinant proteins showed discrepancy in uptake and surface-binding of OxLDL but they did not affect pRBC binding. These results suggested that the interaction between oxLDL and CD36 could be blocked using recombinant proteins and this may be useful in potential control of the trafficking of modified lipoproteins into monocytes leading to atherogenesis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLipids in Health and DiseaseSame topicCellular transport and secretionFrench-language works237,207