MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6890094953 · doi:10.34734/fzj-2024-02340

Channelrhodopsin‐2 Oligomerization in Cell Membrane Revealed by Photo‐Activated Localization Microscopy

2024· article· en· W6890094953 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJuSER Publikationsportal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsInterface Biologics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembraneDimerMembrane proteinFluorescence microscopeMutantMonomerCell membraneMicroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial rhodopsins are retinal membrane proteins that found a broad application in optogenetics. The oligomeric state of rhodopsins is important for their functionality and stability. Of particular interest is the oligomeric state in the cellular native membrane environment. Fluorescence microscopy provides powerful tools to determine the oligomeric state of membrane proteins directly in cells. Among these methods is quantitative photoactivated localization microscopy (qPALM) allowing the investigation of molecular organization at the level of single protein clusters. Here, we apply qPALM to investigate the oligomeric state of the first and most used optogenetic tool Channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) in the plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells. ChR2 appeared predominantly as a dimer in the cell membrane and did not form higher oligomers. The disulfide bonds between Cys34 and Cys36 of adjacent ChR2 monomers were not required for dimer formation and mutations disrupting these bonds resulted in only partial monomerization of ChR2. The monomeric fraction increased when the total concentration of mutant ChR2 in the membrane was low. The dissociation constant was estimated for this partially monomerized mutant ChR2 as 2.2±0.9 proteins/μm2. Our findings are important for understanding the mechanistic basis of ChR2 activity as well as for improving existing and developing future optogenetic tools.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJuSER PublikationsportalSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207