MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773880170 · doi:10.1002/iub.1701

Structure and function of yeast and fungal Na<sup>+</sup>/H<sup>+</sup> antiporters

2017· review· en· W2773880170 on OpenAlexafffund
Debajyoti Dutta, Larry Fliegel

Bibliographic record

VenueIUBMB Life · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Stress Responses and Tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAntiportersAntiporterYeastSchizosaccharomyces pombeEndosomeTransmembrane proteinMembraneSodium–hydrogen antiporterTransport proteinBiochemistryChemistrySodiumBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sodium proton antiporters (or sodium proton exchangers [NHEs]) are a critical family of membrane proteins that exchange sodium for protons across cell membranes. In yeast and plants, their primary function is to keep the sodium concentration low inside the cytoplasm. One class of NHE constitutively expressed in yeast is the plasma membrane Na + /H + antiporter, and another class is expressed on the endosomal/vacuolar membrane. At present, four bacterial plasma membrane antiporter structures are known and nuclear magnetic resonance structures are available for the membrane spanning transmembrane helices of mammalian and yeast NHEs. Additionally, a vast amount of mutational data are available on the role of individual amino acids and critical motifs involved in transport. We combine this information to obtain a more detailed picture of the yeast NHE plasma membrane protein and review mechanisms of transport, conserved motifs, unique residues important in function, and regulation of these proteins. The Na + /H + antiporter of Schizosaccharomyces pombe , Sp NHE1, is an interesting model protein in an easy to study system and is representative of fungal Na + /H + antiporters. © IUBMB Life, 70(1):23–31, 2018

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUBMB LifeSame topicPlant Stress Responses and ToleranceFrench-language works237,207