MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484020400 · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-266-7_7

Proteomic Approaches for the Study of Electrical Synapses and Associated Protein-Interaction Complexes

2012· book-chapter· en· W2484020400 on OpenAlexaff
Cantas Alev, Georg Zoidl, Rolf Dermietzel

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuromethods · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceComputational biologyProtein–protein interactionChemistryComputer scienceBiophysicsBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in the identification and analysis of protein–protein interaction complexes associated with synapses and synaptic proteins deepened not only our insights into the molecular composition and dynamic structural makeup of interneuronal connections but contributed also significantly to our understanding of the molecular and mechanistic aspects underlying functional plasticity in neuronal networks. In particular proteome analytical tools, combining traditional isolation protocols with modern mass spectrometric approaches, were utilized successfully for the molecular analysis of chemical synapses and other neuronal subcellular structures revealing new and exciting insights into the temporal and spatial changes of the proteins composing or associated with for example synaptic vesicles, synaptic membranes, or postsynaptic densities (PSDs). Proteomic approaches may thus offer also a chance to gain valuable insights into the so far elusive molecular composition of electrical synapses, the Cinderella fated and long neglected little brethren of “classical” chemical synapses. In this chapter we provide an experimental basis of how such an analysis can be designed, with a major focus on the most abundant electrical synapse protein, connexin36.

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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuromethodsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207