Cited by 80

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Normal Sorting but Defective Endocytosis of the Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor in Mice with Autosomal Recessive Hypercholesterolemia

Jones, Christopher, Hammer, Robert E., Li, Wei-Ping, Cohen, Jonathan C., Hobbs, Helen H., Herz, Joachim·2003·Journal of Biological Chemistry

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/jbc.m304855200

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Coated pits contain many potential binding partners for LDLR including AP2, PTB domain-containing adaptor proteins such as Dab2, and the clathrin heavy chain.

    “In accordance with this mechanism, coated pits contain many potential binding partners for LDLR including AP2 (34), PTB domain-containing adaptor proteins such as Dab2 (12,28) and the clathrin heavy chain (35).”

    From The Modular Adaptor Protein ARH Is Required for Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Binding and Internalization but Not for LDL Receptor Clustering in Coated Pits (2004) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results identify Dab2 as a PTB domain-containing adaptor protein, supporting the part of the sentence attached to this citation. They report Dab2 binding to megalin, however, not its presence in coated pits or its potential binding to LDLR. The other named proteins have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ARH is required for normal uptake and degradation of LDL in human lymphocytes and in mouse liver.

    “We have shown previously that ARH is required for normal uptake and degradation of LDL in human lymphocytes and in mouse liver (17,28), but the specific role of ARH in LDLRmediated endocytosis has not been defined.”

    From The Modular Adaptor Protein ARH Is Required for Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Binding and Internalization but Not for LDL Receptor Clustering in Coated Pits (2004) · cites this paper as [28]

    The paper reports defective LDL internalization in human lymphoblasts and, in the Results (page unavailable), reduced LDL clearance in ARH-deficient mice; it also identifies an LDL internalization defect in their livers. These passages support the uptake portion of the claim, but do not establish defective LDL degradation in either setting. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In wild-type mice, approximately two-thirds of the hepatic LDLRs are intracellular, whereas in Arh-/- mice the majority of immunodetectable LDLRs are located on the sinusoidal membrane.

    “In wild-type mice, approximately two-thirds of the hepatic LDLRs are intracellular, whereas in Arh Ϫ/Ϫ mice the majority of immunodetectable LDLRs are located on the sinusoidal membrane (9).”

    From The Modular Adaptor Protein Autosomal Recessive Hypercholesterolemia (ARH) Promotes Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor Clustering into Clathrin-coated Pits (2005) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results (page unavailable) report intracellular and cell-surface LDLR staining in wild-type liver, while LDLR in Arh−/− liver was sequestered virtually exclusively at the sinusoidal membrane. Our copy does not quantify the intracellular share in wild-type mice, so it does not support the approximately two-thirds figure. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Serum cholesterol is much higher in LDLR-null than in arh-deleted mice.

    “serum cholesterol is much higher in LDLR-null than in arh-deleted mice”

    From Endocytic adaptors Arh and Dab2 control homeostasis of circulatory cholesterol (2016) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results report much higher plasma cholesterol in LDLR-null mice than in Arh-deleted mice on a chow diet (196 versus 83 mg/dl). The claim omits that diet qualification: levels were similar on the Western diet and closer on the Paigen diet. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The distribution of LDLR in ARH-/- lymphocytes mirrors the distribution observed previously in hepatocytes from ARH-/- mice.

    “The distribution of LDLR in the ARH Ϫ/Ϫ lymphocytes mirrors the distribution observed previously in hepatocytes from ARH Ϫ/Ϫ mice (28).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Osono, 1995, J. Clin. Invest., 95, 1124, 10.1172/JCI117760 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Goldstein, 2001, Science, 292, 1310, 10.1126/science.1061815 · DOI
  3. Garcia, 2001, Science, 292, 1394, 10.1126/science.1060458 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Wilund, 2002, Hum. Mol. Genet., 11, 3019, 10.1093/hmg/11.24.3019 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Zuliani, 1999, Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., 19, 802, 10.1161/01.ATV.19.3.802 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Norman, 1999, J. Clin. Invest., 104, 619, 10.1172/JCI6677 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Arca, 2002, Lancet, 359, 841, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07955-2 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Zuliani, 1995, Eur. J. Clin. Invest., 25, 322, 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1995.tb01709.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. Mishra, 2002, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 99, 16099, 10.1073/pnas.252630799 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Forman-Kay, 1999, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 9, 690, 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)00031-7 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Yan, 2002, FEBS Lett., 513, 67, 10.1016/S0014-5793(01)03305-1 · DOI
  12. Chen, 1990, J. Biol. Chem., 265, 3116, 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)39742-X · DOI · Paper page
  13. Davis, 1986, Cell, 45, 15, 10.1016/0092-8674(86)90533-7 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Garcia-Garcia, 2001, Hum. Mutat., 18, 458, 10.1002/humu.1218 · DOI
  15. Trommsdorff, 1998, J. Biol. Chem., 273, 33556, 10.1074/jbc.273.50.33556 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Trommsdorff, 1999, Cell, 97, 689, 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80782-5 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Willnow, 1994, Science, 264, 1471, 10.1126/science.7515194 · DOI
  18. Goldstein, 1983, Methods Enzymol., 98, 241, 10.1016/0076-6879(83)98152-1 · DOI
  19. Ishibashi, 1993, J. Clin. Invest., 92, 883, 10.1172/JCI116663 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Fraker, 1978, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 80, 849, 10.1016/0006-291X(78)91322-0 · DOI
  21. Herz, 1988, EMBO J., 7, 4119, 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1988.tb03306.x · DOI
  22. Russell, 1984, Cell, 37, 577, 10.1016/0092-8674(84)90388-X · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gotthardt, 2003, J. Biol. Chem., 278, 6059, 10.1074/jbc.M211723200 · DOI
  24. Soriano, 1991, Cell, 64, 693, 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90499-O · DOI
  25. Mansour, 1988, Nature, 336, 348, 10.1038/336348a0 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Willnow, 1994, Methods Cell Biol., 43, 305, 10.1016/S0091-679X(08)60610-X · DOI
  27. Choi, 1993, J. Biol. Chem., 268, 15804, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)82326-2 · DOI
  28. Gotthardt, 2000, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 25616, 10.1074/jbc.M000955200 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Morris, 2002, EMBO J., 21, 1555, 10.1093/emboj/21.7.1555 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kowal, 1990, J. Biol. Chem., 265, 10771, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)87014-4 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Twisk, 2000, J. Clin. Invest., 105, 521, 10.1172/JCI8623 · DOI
  32. Koivisto, 2001, Cell, 105, 575, 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00371-3 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Eden, 2002, J. Clin. Invest., 110, 1695, 10.1172/JCI0216445 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Li, 2001, J. Biol. Chem., 276, 18000, 10.1074/jbc.M101589200 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Rohlmann, 1996, Nature Biotechnol., 14, 1562, 10.1038/nbt1196-1562 · DOI
  36. Somsel Rodman, 2000, J. Cell Sci., 113, 183, 10.1242/jcs.113.2.183 · DOI
  37. Gotthardt, 2003, J. Biol. Chem., 278, 6059, 10.1074/jbc.M211723200 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jones, C., Hammer, R. E., Li, W.-P., Cohen, J. C., Hobbs, H. H., & Herz, J.
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-08
Volume
278
Issue
31
Pages
29024-29030
ISSN
0021-9258
Cited by
80
References
5
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review