MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156186195 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m503672200

Huntingtin Associates with Acidic Phospholipids at the Plasma Membrane

2005· article· en· W2156186195 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly B. Kegel, Ellen Sapp, Jennifer Yoder, Benjamin Cuiffo, Lindsay Sobin, Yun Joong Kim, Zheng‐Hong Qin, Michael R. Hayden, Neil Aronin, David L. Scott, G. Isenberg, Wolfgang H. Goldmann, Marian DiFiglia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsHuntingtinPolyglutamine tractMembraneHuntingtin ProteinChemistryBiophysicsBiochemistryCell biologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have identified a domain in the N terminus of huntingtin that binds to membranes. A three-dimensional homology model of the structure of the binding domain predicts helical HEAT repeats, which emanate a positive electrostatic potential, consistent with a charge-based mechanism for membrane association. An amphipathic helix capable of inserting into pure lipid bilayers may serve to anchor huntingtin to the membrane. In cells, N-terminal huntingtin fragments targeted to regions of plasma membrane enriched in phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate, receptor bound-transferrin, and endogenous huntingtin. N-terminal huntingtin fragments with an expanded polyglutamine tract aberrantly localized to intracellular regions instead of plasma membrane. Our data support a new model in which huntingtin directly binds membranes through electrostatic interactions with acidic phospholipids.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations165
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207