MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463122147 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-889-7:083

Immunodetecting Members of the Bcl-2 Family of Proteins

2005· article· en· W2463122147 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard B. Lock, Kathleen M. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of New South WalesCancer AustraliaRyerson University
KeywordsBcl-2 familyChemistryCell biologyComputational biologyBiologyBiochemistryApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bcl-2 family of proteins centrally regulates the cellular commitment to apoptosis (programmed cell death). Apoptosis, in turn, is critical for the development and homeostasis of multicellular organisms, and defects in apoptosis contribute to a broad range of human diseases and disorders. Consequently, studying the regulation of Bcl-2 and its homologs has significant implications for biomedical research. The mechanisms by which Bcl-2 family members regulate apoptosis are complex, and include variations in intracellular protein levels, direct protein-protein interactions, conformational changes, and subcellular redistribution. Therefore, all of these factors should be considered when assessing how one, or a group, of these proteins contributes to a cell's commitment to apoptosis. The methods described in this chapter will allow the researcher to gain a greater understanding of how intracellular levels of multiple members of the Bcl-2 protein family can be analyzed simultaneously by immunoblotting and how protein-protein interactions can be studied using immunoprecipitation techniques. In addition, the methodology describes how conformational changes can be observed by immunofluorescence and immunoprecipitation, and how subcellular redistribution of Bcl-2 homologs can be followed.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207