MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210611834 · doi:10.3410/f.1002209.201474

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Requirement for Ras guanine nucleotide releasing protein 3 in coupling phospholipase C-gamma2 to Ras in B cell receptor signaling.

2004· dataset· en· W4210611834 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2004
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUehara Memorial Foundation
KeywordsGuanine nucleotide exchange factorPhospholipase CGq alpha subunitCell biologySignal transductionReceptorBiologyG proteinChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two important Ras guanine nucleotide exchange factors, Son of sevenless (Sos) and Ras guanine nucleotide releasing protein (RasGRP), have been implicated in controlling Ras activation when cell surface receptors are stimulated.To address the specificity or redundancy of these exchange factors, we have generated Sos1/Sos2 double-or RasGRP3-deficient B cell lines and determined their ability to mediate Ras activation upon B cell receptor (BCR) stimulation.The BCR requires RasGRP3; in contrast, epidermal growth factor receptor is dependent on Sos1 and Sos2.Furthermore, we show that BCR-induced recruitment of RasGRP3 to the membrane and the subsequent Ras activation are significantly attenuated in phospholipase C-␥ 2-deficient B cells.This defective Ras activation is suppressed by the expression of RasGRP3 as a membrane-attached form, suggesting that phospholipase C-␥ 2 regulates RasGRP3 localization and thereby Ras 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.023

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207