MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The “ins” and “outs” of the high‐affinity choline transporter CHT1

2006· review· en· W2149398412 on OpenAlexaff
Fabíola M. Ribeiro, Stefanie A. G. Black, Vânia F. Prado, R. Jane Rylett, Stephen S. G. Ferguson, Marco A. M. Prado

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurochemistry · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersFogarty International Center
KeywordsTransporterCholineChemistryBiochemistryCell biologyComputational biologyNeuroscienceBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintenance of acetylcholine (ACh) synthesis depends on the activity of the high-affinity choline transporter (CHT1), which is responsible for the reuptake of choline from the synaptic cleft into presynaptic neurons. In this review, we discuss the current understanding of mechanisms involved in the cellular trafficking of CHT1. CHT1 protein is mainly found in intracellular organelles, such as endosomal compartments and synaptic vesicles. The presence of CHT1 at the plasma membrane is limited by rapid endocytosis of the transporter in clathrin-coated pits in a mechanism dependent on a dileucine-like motif present in the carboxyl-terminal region of the transporter. The intracellular pool of CHT1 appears to constitute a reserve pool of transporters, important for maintenance of cholinergic neurotransmission. However, the physiological basis of the presence of CHT1 in intracellular organelles is not fully understood. Current knowledge about CHT1 indicates that stimulated and constitutive exocytosis, in addition to endocytosis, will have major consequences for regulating choline uptake. Future investigations of CHT1 trafficking should elucidate such regulatory mechanisms, which may aid in understanding the pathophysiology of diseases that affect cholinergic neurons, such as Alzheimer's disease.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations104
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurochemistrySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207