MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311057093 · doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.963608

The unexpected versatility of ALP/Enigma family proteins

2022· review· en· W4311057093 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas A. B. Fisher, Frieder Schöck

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPDZ domainMulticellular organismBiologyContext (archaeology)Protein familyCytoskeletonSUPERFAMILYComputational biologyFunction (biology)Model organismCell biologyGeneticsReceptorGeneCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most intriguing features of multicellular animals is their ability to move. On a cellular level, this is accomplished by the rearrangement and reorganization of the cytoskeleton, a dynamic network of filamentous proteins which provides stability and structure in a stationary context, but also facilitates directed movement by contracting. The ALP/Enigma family proteins are a diverse group of docking proteins found in numerous cellular milieus and facilitate these processes among others. In vertebrates, they are characterized by having a PDZ domain in combination with one or three LIM domains. The family is comprised of CLP-36 (PDLIM1), Mystique (PDLIM2), ALP (PDLIM3), RIL (PDLIM4), ENH (PDLIM5), ZASP (PDLIM6), and Enigma (PDLIM7). In this review, we will outline the evolution and function of their protein domains which confers their versatility. Additionally, we highlight their role in different cellular environments, focusing specifically on recent advances in muscle research using Drosophila as a model organism. Finally, we show the relevance of this protein family to human myopathies and the development of muscle-related diseases.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cell and Developmental BiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207