MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156746040 · doi:10.1186/1756-6606-5-9

The Brugada syndrome mutation A39V does not affect surface expression of neuronal rat Cav1.2 channels

2012· article· en· W2156746040 on OpenAlexafffund
Brett Simms, Gerald W. Zamponi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsBrugada syndromeCell biologyPhenotypeCav1.2MutationBiologyLoss functionCalcium channelGene isoformMutantNeuroscienceProtein subunitGeneticsInternal medicineGeneMedicineCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A loss of function of the L-type calcium channel, Cav1.2, results in a cardiac specific disease known as Brugada syndrome. Although many Brugada syndrome channelopathies reduce channel function, one point mutation in the N-terminus of Cav1.2 (A39V) has been shown to elicit disease a phenotype because of a loss of surface trafficking of the channel. This lack of cell membrane expression could not be rescued by the trafficking chaperone Cavβ. FINDINGS: We report that despite the striking loss of trafficking described previously in the cardiac Cav1.2 channel, the A39V mutation while in the background of the brain isoform traffics and functions normally. We detected no differences in biophysical properties between wild type Cav1.2 and A39V-Cav1.2 in the presence of either a cardiac (Cavβ2b), or a neuronal beta subunit (Cavβ1b). In addition, the A39V-Cav1.2 mutant showed a normal Cavβ2b mediated increase in surface expression in tsA-201 cells. CONCLUSIONS: The Brugada syndrome mutation A39V when introduced into rat brain Cav1.2 does not trigger the loss-of-trafficking phenotype seen in a previous study on the human heart isoform of the channel.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207