MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388906848 · doi:10.1016/j.ejcb.2023.151376

Oxidative stress and signaling through EGFR and PKA pathways converge on the nuclear transport factor RanBP1

2023· article· en· W4388906848 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Kodiha, Nabila Azad, Siwei Chu, Noah Crampton, Ursula Stochaj

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cell Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell biologyNuclear localization sequenceSignal transductionBiologyNuclear transportCytoplasmChemistryCell nucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear protein trafficking requires the soluble transport factor RanBP1. The subcellular distribution of RanBP1 is dynamic, as the protein shuttles between the nucleus and cytoplasm. To date, the signaling pathways regulating RanBP1 subcellular localization are poorly understood. During interphase, RanBP1 resides mostly in the cytoplasm. We show here that oxidative stress concentrates RanBP1 in the nucleus, and our study defines the underlying mechanisms. Specifically, RanBP1's cysteine residues are not essential for its oxidant-induced relocation. Furthermore, our pharmacological approaches uncover that signaling mediated by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and protein kinase A (PKA) control RanBP1 localization during stress. In particular, pharmacological inhibitors of EGFR or PKA diminish the oxidant-dependent relocation of RanBP1. Mutant analysis identified serine 60 and tyrosine 103 as regulators of RanBP1 nuclear accumulation during oxidant exposure. Taken together, our results define RanBP1 as a target of oxidative stress and a downstream effector of EGFR and PKA signaling routes. This positions RanBP1 at the intersection of important cellular signaling circuits.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cell BiologySame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207