MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165110231 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0401413101

Unique domain anchoring of Src to synaptic NMDA receptors via the mitochondrial protein NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2

2004· article· en· W2165110231 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey R. Gingrich, Kenneth A. Pelkey, Sami R. Fam, Yue‐Qiao Huang, Ronald S. Petralia, Robert J. Wenthold, Michael W. Salter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase SrcBiologyCell biologySH3 domainProtein subunitSH2 domainBiochemistrySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Src is the prototypic protein tyrosine kinase and is critical for controlling diverse cellular functions. Regions in Src define structural and functional domains conserved in many cell signaling proteins. Src also contains a region of low sequence conservation termed the unique domain, the function of which has until now remained enigmatic. Here, we show that the unique domain of Src is a protein-protein interaction region and we identify NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (ND2) as a Src unique domain-interacting protein. ND2 is a subunit of complex I in mitochondria, but we find that ND2 interacts with Src outside this organelle at excitatory synapses in the brain. ND2 acts as an adapter protein anchoring Src to the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor complex, and is crucial for Src regulation of synaptic NMDA receptor activity. By showing an extramitochondrial action for a protein encoded in the mitochondrial genome, we identify a previously unsuspected means by which mitochondria regulate cellular function, suggesting a new paradigm that may be of general relevance for control of Src signaling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations127
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207