MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400842631 · doi:10.3390/biom14070866

Calreticulin—Enigmatic Discovery

2024· review· en· W4400842631 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian C. Okura, Alamelu G. Bharadwaj, David M. Waisman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomolecules · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiotin and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalreticulinCell biologyAnnalsEndoplasmic reticulumImmunoprecipitationBiologyComputational biologyChemistryNeuroscienceBiochemistryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calreticulin (CRT) is an intrinsically disordered multifunctional protein that plays essential roles intra-and extra-cellularly. The Michalak laboratory has proposed that CRT was initially identified in 1974 by the MacLennan laboratory as the high-affinity Ca2+-binding protein (HACBP) of the sarcoplasmic reticulin (SR). This widely accepted belief has been ingrained in the scientific literature but has never been rigorously tested. In our report, we have undertaken a comprehensive reexamination of this assumption by meticulously examining the majority of published studies that present a proteomic analysis of the SR. These analyses have utilized proteomic analysis of purified SR preparations or purified components of the SR, namely the longitudinal tubules and junctional terminal cisternae. These studies have consistently failed to detect the HACBP or CRT in skeletal muscle SR. We propose that the existence of the HACBP has failed the test of reproducibility and should be retired to the annals of antiquity. Therefore, the scientific dogma that the HACBP and CRT are identical proteins is a non sequitur.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomoleculesSame topicBiotin and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207