A molecular toolbox for studying protein degradation in mammalian cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein degradation is a crucial regulatory process in maintaining cellular proteostasis. The selective degradation of intracellular proteins controls diverse cellular and biochemical processes in all kingdoms of life. Targeted protein degradation is implicated in controlling the levels of regulatory proteins as well as eliminating misfolded and any otherwise abnormal proteins. Deregulation of protein degradation is concomitant with the progression of various neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. Thus, methods of measuring metabolic half-lives of proteins greatly influence our understanding of the diverse functions of proteins in mammalian cells including neuronal cells. Historically, protein degradation rates have been studied via exploiting methods that estimate overall protein degradation or focus on few individual proteins. Notably, with the recent technical advances and developments in proteomic and imaging techniques, it is now possible to measure degradation rates of a large repertoire of defined proteins and analyze the degradation profile in a detailed spatio-temporal manner, with the aim of determining proteome-wide protein stabilities upon different physiological conditions. Herein, we discuss some of the classical and novel methods for determining protein degradation rates highlighting the crucial role of some state of art approaches in deciphering the global impact of dynamic nature of targeted degradation of cellular proteins. This article is part of the Special Issue "Proteomics".
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".