MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892197574 · doi:10.1074/jbc.tm118.002805

Multiple functionalities of molecular chaperones revealed through systematic mapping of their interaction networks

2018· review· en· W2892197574 on OpenAlexafffund
Kamran Rizzolo, Walid A. Houry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProteostasisCooperativityChaperone (clinical)BiologyComputational biologyCo-chaperoneProtein–protein interactionEpistasisCell biologyGeneticsHeat shock proteinHsp90GeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chaperones are a highly interactive group of proteins that function globally in many cellular processes involved in maintaining protein homeostasis. Traditional biochemical assays typically do not provide a complete view of the intricate networks through which chaperones collaborate to promote proteostasis. Recent advances in high-throughput systematic analyses of chaperone interactions have uncovered that chaperones display a remarkable cooperativity in their interactions with numerous client proteins. This cooperativity has been found to be a fundamental aspect of a properly functioning cell. Aberrant formation or improper regulation of these interactions can easily lead to disease states. Herein, we provide an overview of the use of large-scale interaction assays, whether physical (protein-protein) or genetic (epistatic), to study chaperone interaction networks. Importantly, we discuss the ongoing need for such studies to determine the mechanisms by which protein homeostasis is controlled in the cell.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207