MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244313542 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647773

Affinity interactions of Actin with HS1 and Annexin I, II, IV, V and VI in RAW264.7 macrophages in vitro and in the Fc-receptor complex

2021· preprint· en· W4244313542 on OpenAlexaff
Angelica Kirsten Florentinus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWestern blotAnnexinMolecular biologyAffinity chromatographyActinChemistryIn vitroBiologyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Actin binding proteins HS1 and Annexin I, II, III, IV, V and VI proteins were examined in RAW macrophages in vitro using affinity chromatography, LC-MS/MS, western blot, cell staining and expression of fluorescent proteins. Actins and many related actin isoforms were observed in the phagosome. However, actins were also observed on polystyrene beads incubated with crude extracts readily bound to NHS affinity chromatography beads in the absence of anti-actin antibodies. Annexin II and V and the haematopoietic specific proteins HS1 (also called Lyn substrate) were prominently observed in isolated phagosomes and not observed in control beads incubated with crude extracts of RAW macrophages. Annexin II and V as well as G3BP, FLT1, FARP2, STARD13, RAB25, and FRAP1 were observed to bind actin in affinity chromatography experiments using LC-MS/MS and western blot. Cell staining and/or expression of GFP constructs showed that actin, HS1 and Annexin V prominently accumulate at the nascent Fc-receptor complex of RAW macrophages.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207