Role of unfolded protein response and ER-associated degradation under freezing, anoxia, and dehydration stresses in the freeze-tolerant wood frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American amphibian, wood frogs, Rana sylvatica are the most studied anuran to comprehend vertebrate freeze tolerance. Multiple adaptations support their survival in frigid temperatures during winters, particularly their ability to produce glucose as natural cryoprotectant. Freezing and its component consequences (anoxia and dehydration) induce multiple stresses on cells. Among these is endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, a condition spawned by buildup of unfolded or misfolded proteins in the ER. The ER stress causes the unfolded protein response (UPR) and the ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway that potentially could lead to apoptosis. Immunoblotting was used to assess the responses of major proteins of the UPR and ERAD under freezing, anoxia, and dehydration stresses in the liver and skeletal muscle of the wood frogs. Targets analyzed included activating transcription factors (ATF3, ATF4, ATF6), the growth arrest and DNA damage proteins (GADD34, GADD153), and EDEM (ERAD enhancing α-mannosidase-like proteins) and XBP1 (X-box binding protein 1) proteins. UPR signaling was triggered under all three stresses (freezing, anoxia, dehydration) in liver and skeletal muscle of wood frogs with most tissue/stress responses consistent with an upregulation of the primary targets of all three UPR pathways (ATF4, ATF6, and XBP-1) to enhance the protein folding/refolding capacity under these stress conditions. Only frozen muscle showed preference for proteasomal degradation of misfolded proteins via upregulation of EDEM (ERAD). The ERAD response of liver was downregulated across three stresses suggesting preference for more refolding of misfolded/unfolded proteins. Overall, we conclude that wood frog organs activate the UPR as a means of stabilizing and repairing cellular proteins to best survive freezing exposures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".