MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914499521 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1800837

What’s Bred in the Bone: Calcium Channels in Lymphocytes

2019· review· en· W2914499521 on OpenAlexafffund
Franz Fenninger, Wilfred A. Jefferies

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicIon Channels and Receptors
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCell biologyIntracellularReceptorSecond messenger systemCytosolBiologyVoltage-dependent calcium channelCalcium in biologyCalciumCalcium signalingLymphocyteSignal transductionPlasma membrane Ca2+ ATPaseInositolCytoplasmChemistryBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Calcium (Ca2+) is an important second messenger in lymphocytes and is essential in regulating various intracellular pathways that control critical cell functions. Ca2+ channels are located in the plasma membrane and intracellular membranes, facilitating Ca2+ entry into the cytoplasm. Upon Ag receptor stimulation, Ca2+ can enter the lymphocyte via the Ca2+ release-activated Ca2+ channel found in the plasma membrane. The increase of cytosolic Ca2+ modulates signaling pathways, resulting in the transcription of target genes implicated in differentiation, activation, proliferation, survival, and apoptosis of lymphocytes. Along with Ca2+ release-activated Ca2+ channels, several other channels have been found in the membranes of T and B lymphocytes contributing to key cellular events. Among them are the transient receptor potential channels, the P2X receptors, voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels, and the inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor as well as the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors. In this article, we review the contributions of these channels to mediating Ca2+ currents that drive specific lymphocyte functions.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicIon Channels and ReceptorsFrench-language works237,207