MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330314962 · doi:10.1042/bj20131162

Extracellular domains play different roles in gap junction formation and docking compatibility

2014· review· en· W2330314962 on OpenAlexafffund
Donglin Bai, Ao Hong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDocking (animal)ConnexinMutantDOCKCell biologyBiologyChemistryGap junctionBiophysicsBiochemistryIntracellularGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GJ (gap junction) channels mediate direct intercellular communication and play an important role in many physiological processes. Six connexins oligomerize to form a hemichannel and two hemichannels dock together end-to-end to form a GJ channel. Connexin extracellular domains (E1 and E2) have been shown to be important for the docking, but the molecular mechanisms behind the docking and formation of GJ channels are not clear. Recent developments in atomic GJ structure and functional studies on a series of connexin mutants revealed that E1 and E2 are likely to play different roles in the docking. Non-covalent interactions at the docking interface, including hydrogen bonds, are predicted to form between interdocked extracellular domains. Protein sequence alignment analysis on the docking compatible/incompatible connexins indicate that the E1 domain is important for the formation of the GJ channel and the E2 domain is important in the docking compatibility in heterotypic channels. Interestingly, the hydrogen-bond forming or equivalent residues in both E1 and E2 domains are mutational hot spots for connexin-linked human diseases. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of GJ docking can assist us to develop novel strategies in rescuing the disease-linked connexin mutants.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical JournalSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207