A comparison of Hsp90α and Hsp90β interactions with cochaperones and substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hsp90 chaperone complexes function in assembly, folding, and activation of numerous substrates. The 2 vertebrate homologues encoded by the genes hsp90a and hsp90b are differentially expressed in embryonic and adult tissues and during stress; however, it is not known whether they possess identical functional activities in chaperone complexes. This question was addressed by examining potential differences between the Hsp90 isoforms with respect to both cochaperone and substrate interactions. Epitope-tagged proteins were expressed in mammalian cells or Xenopus oocytes and subjected to immunoprecipitation with an array of co-chaperones. Both isoforms were shown to participate equally in multichaperone complexes, and no significant differences in cochaperone distribution were observed. The substrates Raf-1, HSF1, Cdc37, and MEK1 interacted with both Hsp90alpha and Hsp90beta, and the relative patterns of these interactions were not affected by heat shock. The substrate kinases c-Src, CKIIB, A-raf, and Erk interacted with both isoforms; however, significantly more Hsp90alpha was recovered after heat shock. The data demonstrate that Hsp90alpha and Hsp90beta exhibit similar interactions with co-chaperones, but significantly different behaviors with respect to substrate interactions under stress conditions. These results reveal both functional similarities and key functional differences in the individual members of this protein family.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".