MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Toward the Structural Characterization of the Gabapentin Binding site

2015· article· en· W1024534697 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Briot, J. Sygusch, Nazzareno D’Avanzo, Lucie Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGabapentinCircular dichroismChemistryBinding siteProtein subunitBiophysicsBinding domainCrystallographyBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gabapentinoids are prescription drugs used to relieve neuropathic pain, epilepsy and anxiety. One member of this family, gabapentin has been shown to bind with nanomolar affinity to the Ca V α2δ subunit of pre‐synaptic voltage‐gated calcium channels. We undertook a study to characterize the structural determinants of the gabapentin binding site on the extracellular N‐terminal domain of Ca V α2δ. The nucleotide sequence of a domain of 246 residues, including the putative binding site, was inserted in a pET28 vector. The protein, expressed in BL21(DE3) bacteria, was found to be mostly located in inclusion bodies and had to be solubilized in 8 M urea. Primary sequence of the purified protein was confirmed by MALDI mass spectrometry and protein refolding was promoted by removing urea through overnight dialysis. The recovery of the native‐like structure was validated using size exclusion chromatography, circular dichroism, and small‐angle X‐ray scattering. The protein was found to be stable at 4 ° C for 2 weeks. Interaction between the 246‐residue domain (2 µM) and gabapentin (2 µM, 20 µM and 40 µM) was examined using differential scanning fluorimetry. Preliminary data show that gabapentin does not significantly affect the stability of this domain. We have nonetheless undertaken crystallization trials with and without gabapentin to obtain a high‐resolution 3D structure of this domain. Other structural domains of Ca V α2 are concurrently in the process of purification using similar approaches. Altogether our studies will ultimately shed light on the molecular mechanism underlying the effect of gabapentin in pain management.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→