Additional file 4 of The Q/R editing site of AMPA receptor GluA2 subunit acts as an epigenetic switch regulating dendritic spines, neurodegeneration and cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 4: Sup Figure 4. AMPAR surface expression and complex formulation. (a-b) BS3 crosslinking of surface AMPARs alters their molecular weight enabling the discrimination of surface-crosslinked versus intracellular-non crosslinked AMPARs. No changes were found to the ratio of surface to intracellular GluA2 in the (a) whole hippocampus or in (b) hippocampal subregions: CA1, CA3 or DG (n’s for a: WT = 7, GluA2G/G= 8, J20 = 8, GluA2G/G/J20 = 8; n’s for b: WT = 4 for CA1 and DG and 5 for CA3, GluA2G/G= 4 for CA1 and DG and 5 for CA3, J20 = 5 for CA1 and CA3 and 4 for DG, GluA2G/G/J20 = 5 for CA1 and CA3 and 4 for DG; CA1 ANOVA: F(3,14) = 1.607 p = 0.232; CA3 ANOVA: F(3,16) = 1.403 p = 0.278; DG ANOVA: F(3,12) = 1.262 p = 0.24). N’s represent averaged normalised values per immunoblot. Total protein expression of (c) GluA2 and (d) GluA2/3 in the hippocampus showed no differences between any of the genotypes (n = 6/genotype except for (c) where GluA2G/G= 5 and GluA2G/G/J20 = 5; GluA2 ANOVA: F(3,18) = 1.068 p = 0.39; GluA2/3 ANOVA: F(3,20) = 0.51 p = 0.68). (e) Co-immunoprecipitation of AMPAR subunits demonstrated none of the genotypes showed any alterations to their AMPA receptor composition within the hippocampus (unbound fraction shown; n’s: WT = 4, GluA2G/G= 3, J20 = 4, GluA2G/G/J20 = 4). For example, the first column of image in top left shows 100% of GluA1 remained in the unbound fraction when IP’ed against the IgG control, followed by <5% of GluA1 remaining in the unbound fraction when IP’ed against GluA1, followed by 12% of GluA1 remaining in the unbound fraction when IP’ed against GluA2, etc. Each value represents the mean ± the SD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.928 | 0.241 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".