MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transcriptional, Post‐transcriptional, and Post‐translational Regulation of MK5 in Cardiac Cells

2020· article· en· W3020083376 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pramod Sahadevan, Sherin A. Nawaito, Fatiha Sahmi, Louis Villeneuve, Matthias Gaestel, Bruce G. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocyteMessenger RNAKinaseProtein kinase AInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyCell biologyMolecular biologyChemistryMedicineBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background MAP kinase‐activated protein kinase‐5 (MK5) is a protein serine/threonine kinase identified as a putative substrate of both p38α/β MAPKs and atypical MAPKs ERK3 and ERK4. MK5 mRNA is detected in adult cardiac ventricular fibroblasts and myocytes whereas MK5 immunoreactivity is detected in fibroblasts but not myocytes.Little is known about the molecular mechanisms regulating MK5 in the heart. This study was to investigate the regulation of MK5 activity in cardiac fibroblasts and to determine if pro‐hypertrophic agonists such as angiotensin II (Ang II), endothelin 1 (ET1) and norepinephrine (NE) stimulate the translation of MK5 in cardiac myocytes. Methods Cardiac ventricular fibroblasts and myocytes were isolated from MK5 +/+ mice and Sprague‐Dawley rats. MK5 was visualized by immunoblot assay following separation by SDS‐PAGE, 2‐dimensional gel electrophoresis, and Phos‐tag PAGE. mRNA abundance was determined by droplet digital PCR and qPCR. The subcellular localization of ERK3 and MK5 was determined by confocal immunocytofluorescence. Results The copy number of MK5 mRNA was similar in both adult cardiac fibroblasts and myocytes. However, the relative expression of MK5 mRNA splice variants differed between the cell types. In both, MK5.1 was the most abundant variant whereas MK5.2 was the least. MK5.2+MK5.5 represented about 35.9% of total MK5 mRNA in cardiac fibroblasts as compared to 22.9% in myocytes. However, the variant MK5.3 was 0.1% in fibroblasts as compared to 1.4% in myocytes. Considering the variants MK5.4+MK5.5, it was 2.9% in fibroblasts and 5.7% in the myocyte. In cardiac myocytes, inhibition of the proteasome inhibition using MG132 failed to rescue MK5 immunoreactivity. Similarly, incubation with hypertrophic agonists Ang II, ET1, or NE did not result in detection of MK5 immunoreactivity. In serum‐starved cardiac myofibroblasts, MK5 immunoreactivity was primarily localized to the nucleus. Activation of MK5 involves phosphorylation at threonine‐182 (Thr182). Following serum stimulation, phospho‐MK5(Thr182) immunoreactivity was observed in the cytoplasm: phospho‐MK5(Thr182)immunoreactivity appeared to be associated with the cytoskeleton and pseudopodia. No phospho‐MK5(Thr182) immunoreactivity was detected in serum‐stimulated myofibroblasts following incubation with an inhibitor of p38αβMAPK activity, SB203580. In actively dividing fibroblasts, Phos‐tag PAGE in the presence of Mn 2+ , but not in the presence of EDTA, revealed multiple phospho‐forms of MK5. In addition, the Phos‐tag profile of MK5 immunoreactivity in mouse ventricular fibroblasts differed from that of rat fibroblasts. Conclusions 1) The absence of MK5 immunoreactivity in cardiac ventricular myocytes was not due to rapid degradation by the proteasome, indicating differences in post‐transcriptional regulation of MK5 expression involve cell type‐specific translation. 2) In cardiac ventricular fibroblasts, phosphorylation of MK5 at threonine‐182 in response to serum stimulation requires p38a/bactivity. 3) Threonine‐182 is not the only site at which MK5 is phosphorylated in vivo. Support or Funding Information This study was supported by a Grant‐In‐Aid from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207