MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162622185 · doi:10.1186/1756-6606-3-22

Transactivation of PDGFRβ by dopamine D4 receptor does not require PDGFRβ dimerization

2010· article· en· W2162622185 on OpenAlexafffund
Sum Shing, Sandra Vetiska, Robin S. Gill, Marilyn S. Hsiung, Fang Liu, H H Van Tol

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransactivationPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorPhosphorylationCell biologyReceptor tyrosine kinaseReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesSignal transductionCancer researchBiologyReceptorG protein-coupled receptorChemistryGrowth factorBiochemistryTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth factor-induced receptor dimerization and cross-phosphorylation are hallmarks of signal transduction via receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can activate RTKs through a process known as transactivation. The prototypical model of RTK transactivation involves ligand-mediated RTK dimerization and cross-phosphorylation. Here, we show that the platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta (PDGFRbeta) transactivation by the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) is not dependent on ligands for PDGFRbeta. Furthermore, when PDGFRbeta dimerization is inhibited and receptor phosphorylation is suppressed to near basal levels, the receptor maintains its ability to be transactivated and is still effective in signaling to ERK1/2. Hence, the DRD4-PDGFRbeta-ERK1/2 pathway can occur independently of a PDGF-like ligand, PDGFRbeta cross-phosphorylation and dimerization, which is distinct from other known forms of transactivation of RTKs by GPCRs.

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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207