MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308345286 · doi:10.1016/j.cophys.2022.100613

Mechanisms and physiological functions of ER-phagy

2022· article· en· W4308345286 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pablo Sanz-Martinez, Alexandra Stolz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Physiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutophagy in Disease and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovative Medicines InitiativeInnovative Health InitiativeKungliga Tekniska HögskolanDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDr. Rolf M. Schwiete StiftungEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMcGill University
KeywordsEndoplasmic reticulumCell biologyAutophagyHomeostasisOrganelleReceptorBiologyProcess (computing)ChemistryBiochemistryComputer scienceApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the largest cellular organelle that undergoes constant turnover upon diverse functional demands and cellular signals. Removal of nonfunctional or superfluous subdomains is balanced by the parallel expansion and formation of ER membranes, leading to the dynamic exchange of ER components. In recent years, selective autophagy of the ER, termed ER-phagy, has emerged as a predominant process involved in ER degradation and maintenance of ER homeostasis. Identification of multiple ER-phagy receptors, many with additional ER-shaping functions, paved the way for our molecular understanding of ER turnover in different cells and organs. In this review, we describe the molecular principles underling the physiological functions of ER-phagy in maintaining ER homeostasis via receptor-mediated macroautophagy and elaborate current focus points of the field.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PhysiologySame topicAutophagy in Disease and TherapyFrench-language works237,207