MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295693706 · doi:10.1002/1873-3468.14496

Myelin‐associated glycoprotein alters the neuronal secretome and stimulates the release of <scp>TGFβ</scp> and proteins that affect neural plasticity

2022· article· en· W4295693706 on OpenAlexafffund
Vanessa D. Stewart, Justine Cadieux, Matsya R. Thulasiram, Tinsley Claire Douglas, Dennis A. Drewnik, Suhaila Selamat, Ying Lao, Victor Spicer, Sari S. Hannila

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWings for Life
KeywordsCell biologyMyelin-associated glycoproteinSecretionReceptorPhosphorylationBiologyNeuriteTransforming growth factorMyelinNeuroscienceBiochemistryCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) and Nogo inhibit neurite outgrowth by binding to receptors such as NgR1, PirB and LRP1, and they have also been shown to induce phosphorylation of Smad2, a key intermediate in the transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) signalling pathway. In this study, we determined that MAG and Nogo do not transactivate the TGFβ receptor through their canonical receptors or discoidin domain receptor 1, which we identified as a novel receptor for MAG and Nogo. Instead, MAG and Nogo promoted Smad2 phosphorylation by stimulating secretion of TGFβ. Proteomic analysis of the neuronal secretome revealed that MAG also regulated the secretion of proteins that affect central nervous system plasticity-inducing the secretion of S100A6, septin-7 and neurofascin 186, while inhibiting the secretion of frataxin, MAP6, syntenin-1 and GAP-43. This represents a novel function for MAG that has broad implications for the treatment for spinal cord injury.

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)0.001
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207