MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evolution of hypoxia‐responsive cytochrome c oxidase genes

2012· article· en· W3174056227 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher D. Moyes, Katrinka M. Kocha, Jessica Pearlstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGene isoformHypoxia (environmental)Cytochrome c oxidaseGeneBiochemistryChemistryOxygenEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the mechanisms that fine‐tune cytochrome c oxidase (COX) levels/activities is an oxygen‐dependent switch of paralogs for subunit 4. COX4‐1 is constitutively expressed in most tissues; COX4‐2 predominates in brain and lung and is induced by hypoxia in other tissues. Though there is considerable evidence that this isoform switch has advantages in COX regulation under energetic stress, the evolutionary origins of the adaptation are unclear. All vertebrates possess single gene copies of both orthologs, though birds lack a functional COX4‐2 gene. Mammals, amphibians and reptiles display considerable diversity in the distribution, degeneracy and efficacy of canonical hypoxia‐responsive elements (HRE) and oxygen‐responsive elements (ORE). Fish display mammalian‐like tissue expression profiles of COX4‐1 and COX4‐2, but we find no evidence that COX4‐2 is hypoxia responsive; fish and fish cells do not alter COX4‐2 expression under hypoxia or anoxia, and their proximal promoters lack HRE or ORE elements homologous to the human gene. These studies suggest that the COX4‐2 paralog is near ubiquitous in vertebrates, but its oxygen responsiveness is perhaps limited to mammals. Even in mammals, its oxygen sensitivity differs among tissues and between cancer lines. Funded by NSERC 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→