MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Control of CCR5 Cell Surface Targeting by the PRAF2 Gatekeeper

2023· preprint· en· W4388681746 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elisa Da Silva, Mark G. H. Scott, Hervé Enslen, Stéfano Marullo

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsCOPIICell biologyEndoplasmic reticulumG protein-coupled receptorVesicleReceptorChemokine receptorTransmembrane domainChemistryIntracellularBiologyBiochemistryGolgi apparatusSignal transductionChemokineSecretory pathwayMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cell surface targeting of neo-synthesized G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) involves recruitment of receptor into COPII vesicles budding at Endoplasmic Reticulum Exit sites (ERES). This process is regulated for some GPCRs by escort proteins, which facilitate their export, or by gatekeepers that retain the receptors in the ER. PRAF2, an ER gatekeeper of the heterodimeric GABAB receptor protomer GB1, which interacts with a tandem di-leucine / RXR retention motif in the carboxyterminal tail of GB1, also inhibits the plasma membrane export of the chemokine receptor CCR5. PRAF2 / CCR5 interactions involve the transmembrane domains of both proteins. The di-leucine / RXR motif contained in the third intracellular loop of CCR5 does not affect PRAF2-mediated retention but impairs instead the interaction between CCR5 and its private escort protein CD4. PRAF2 and CD4 thus display opposite roles on the cell surface export of CCR5, likely at the level of its recruitment into COPII vesicles, PRAF2 inhibiting and CD4 promoting this process.

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 score0.007

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling→French-language works237,207→