MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7064932075

Comparaison de lâubiquitylation de différentes protéines à domaine SH3 impliquées dans lâendocytose suite à leur interaction avec la ligase de lâubiquitine Itch

2010· other· fr· W7064932075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2010
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA ligaseDDB1
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Itch est la seule ligase de l'ubiquitine de type C2-WW-HECT capable d'interagir avec les protéines à domaine SH3. Ce domaine est particulièrement représenté parmi les protéines régulatrices de l'endocytose. Les travaux présentés ici visaient à examiner la capacité d'Itch à interagir avec plusieurs protéines endocytiques. Nous avons utilisé la technique du BRET (Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer) pour examiner quelques protéines candidates. Nous avons ensuite confirmé les résultats obtenus par BRET avec des tests d'interaction in vitro, puis déterminé la capacité d'Itch à ubiquityler\nles protéines liées via leurs domaines SH3. Nous avons ainsi découvert deux nouveaux partenaires d'interaction et substrats d'Itch parmi les protéines endocytiques, amphyphisine et pacsine. De plus, Itch interagit avec les domaines SH3 isolés d'intersectine, mais pas avec la protéine complète, suggérant que cette dernière n'est pas\nun substrat d'Itch. Itch est donc bien positionnée pour exercer un rôle régulateur de l'endocytose en ubiquitylant ses substrats.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→