MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163501721 · doi:10.1002/mrd.21275

Binding of nickel to testicular glutamate-ammonia ligase inhibits its enzymatic activity

2010· article· en· W2163501721 on OpenAlexafffund
Yingbiao Sun, Young Ou, Min Cheng, Yibing Ruan, Frans A. van der Hoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Reproduction and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsBiologyAmmoniaEnzymeDNA ligaseGlutamate receptorBiochemistryUbiquitin ligaseNickelGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to nickel has been shown to cause damage to the testis in several animal models. It is not known if the testis expresses protein(s) that can bind nickel. To test this, we used a nickel-binding assay to isolate testicular nickel-binding proteins. We identified glutamate-ammonia ligase (GLUL) as a prominent nickel-binding protein by mass spectrometry. Protein analysis and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction showed that GLUL is expressed in the testis, predominantly in interstitial cells. We determined that GLUL has a higher affinity for nickel than for its regular co-factor manganese. We produced an enzymatically active, recombinant GLUL protein. Upon binding, nickel interferes with the manganese-catalyzed enzymatic activity of recombinant GLUL protein. We also determined that GLUL activity in testes of animals exposed to nickel sulfate is reduced. Our results identify testicular GLUL as the first testicular protein shown to be affected by nickel exposure.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Reproduction and DevelopmentSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207