MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synthesis and biologic activity of conformationally constrained analogs of L‐363,301

2005· article· en· W1502508790 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Blaj Moore, Michael P. Grant, Yosup Rew, E. Bosa, M. Fabbri, Ujendra Kumar, Murray Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsStereochemistryChemistryPotencySomatostatinReceptorCyclic peptideSelectivityBiological activityPeptideIn vitroBiochemistryBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the synthesis, biological activity and conformational analysis of analogs of the cyclic hexapeptide L-363,301, c[Pro6-Phe7-D-Trp8-Lys9-Thr10-Phe11] (numbering as in the native hormone somatostatin-14). The d-Trp in position 8 was replaced with (2R,3S)- and (2R,3R)-beta-MeTrp respectively, with an added methyl group in the beta position of Trp. The objective of our study was to determine the potency and selectivity generated by the added constraint in the beta position of the d-Trp upon binding to human somatostatin receptors hsst1-5. We synthesized the building blocks enantioselectively and incorporated them into the peptides by SPPS. Competition binding assays revealed that both compounds 2 and 3 were selective for hsst2 over hsst5. The (2R,3S) analog 2 was approximately 30 times more potent at hsst2 than the (2R,3R) analog 3. Interestingly, the (2R,3R) compound showed no binding affinity at hsst5.

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 score0.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peptide ResearchSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207