Adaptor Protein-2 Exhibits α<sub>1</sub>β<sub>1</sub> or α<sub>6</sub>β<sub>1</sub> Integrin-Dependent Redistribution in Rhabdomyosarcoma Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Downregulation of several signaling pathways, such as those stimulated by growth factor receptors, occurs by internalization of signaling receptors through clathrin-coated pits. The first step in internalization or endocytosis is interaction with AP-2, which results in coated pit formation by assembly of clathrin to AP-2. Changes in endocytosis are reflected in the distribution of AP-2 molecules at the cell surface. Integrins are receptors which mediate attachment to the extracellular matrix and also stimulate numerous intracellular signaling pathways; however, it is not known how signaling through integrins is terminated or downregulated. Endocytosis through clathrin-coated pits offers an attractive mechanism for this. This work explores the relationship between AP-2 and beta(1) integrins. RD cells grown for 24 h on collagen or laminin exhibit a redistribution of AP-2 to the cell periphery relative to those grown on fibronectin or polylysine. The total AP-2 protein levels in the cells are unaffected. Blocking alpha(1)beta(1) integrin ligand binding on collagen prevents this redistribution fully. On laminin where alpha(1)beta(1) and alpha(6)beta(1) integrins are engaged, both receptors must be simultaneously blocked to prevent AP-2 redistribution, confirming that the redistribution depends on the specific engagement of the receptors. Immunofluorescence reveals that the majority of alpha(1)beta(1) integrins colocalize with alpha(6)beta(1) integrins in linear structures identified as focal adhesions. A separate fraction of alpha(1)beta(1) integrins colocalize with AP-2 in coated pits. Interestingly, alpha(6)beta(1) integrins are not located in coated pits, demonstrating that integrin colocalization with AP-2 is not necessary to induce redistribution of AP-2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".