MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096011484 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1009172

Suppression of retinal degeneration by two novel ERAD ubiquitin E3 ligases SORDD1/2 in Drosophila

2020· article· en· W3096011484 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jaiwei Xu, Haifang Zhao, Tao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyRetinal degenerationRhodopsinEndoplasmic-reticulum-associated protein degradationUbiquitinCell biologyEndoplasmic reticulumRetinitis pigmentosaUbiquitin ligaseDrosophila melanogasterUnfolded protein responseMutantGeneticsRetinalBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in the gene rhodopsin are one of the major causes of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (adRP). Mutant forms of Rhodopsin frequently accumulate in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), cause ER stress, and trigger photoreceptor cell degeneration. Here, we performed a genome-wide screen to identify suppressors of retinal degeneration in a Drosophila model of adRP, carrying a point mutation in the major rhodopsin, Rh1 (Rh1G69D). We identified two novel E3 ubiquitin ligases SORDD1 and SORDD2 that effectively suppressed Rh1G69D-induced photoreceptor dysfunction and retinal degeneration. SORDD1/2 promoted the ubiquitination and degradation of Rh1G69D through VCP (valosin containing protein) and independent of processes reliant on the HRD1 (HMG-CoA reductase degradation protein 1)/HRD3 complex. We further demonstrate that SORDD1/2 and HRD1 function in parallel and in a redundant fashion to maintain rhodopsin homeostasis and integrity of photoreceptor cells. These findings identify a new ER-associated protein degradation (ERAD) pathway and suggest that facilitating SORDD1/2 function may be a therapeutic strategy to treat adRP.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

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 spread0.227 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207