MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997037077 · doi:10.1074/jbc.ra119.011461

Molecular basis for activation and biased signaling at the thrombin-activated GPCR proteinase activated receptor-4 (PAR4)

2019· article· en· W2997037077 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre E. Thibeault, Jordan C LeSarge, D’Arcy Arends, Michaela Fernandes, Peter Chidiac, Peter B. Stathopulos, Leonard G. Luyt, Rithwik Ramachandran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsThrombinG protein-coupled receptorProtease-activated receptorReceptorChemistryThrombin receptorCell biologyBiochemistryBiologyPlateletImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteinase-activated receptor (PAR)-4 is a member of the proteolytically-activated PAR family of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) that represents an important target in the development of anti-platelet therapeutics. PARs are activated by proteolytic cleavage of their receptor N terminus by enzymes such as thrombin, trypsin, and cathepsin-G. This reveals the receptor-activating motif, termed the tethered ligand that binds intramolecularly to the receptor and triggers signaling. However, PARs are also activated by exogenous application of synthetic peptides derived from the tethered-ligand sequence. To better understand the molecular basis for PAR4-dependent signaling, we examined PAR4-signaling responses to a peptide library derived from the canonical PAR4-agonist peptide, AYPGKF-NH 2 , and we monitored activation of the G q/11 -coupled calcium-signaling pathway, -arrestin recruitment, and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway activation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207