MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980561290 · doi:10.1139/v04-061

Taxol interaction with DNA and RNA Stability and structural features

2004· article· en· W1980561290 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Amin Ahmed Ouameur, H. Malonga, J. F. Neault, S. Diamantoglou, H.A. Tajmir‐Riahi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolynucleotideChemistryDNARNANucleic acidStereochemistryCapillary electrophoresisBase pairBinding constantHelix (gastropod)Binding siteIn vitroNucleotideBiochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taxol (paclitaxel) is an anticancer drug that interacts with microtubule proteins in a manner that catalyzes their formation from tubulin and stabilizes the resulting structures. However, in the human lung tumor cell, the concentration of paclitaxel is highest in the nucleus. Therefore, it was of interest to examine the interaction of taxol with DNA and RNA in aqueous solution at physiological pH. Capillary electrophoresis and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) difference spectroscopic methods were used to characterize the nature of drug–DNA and drug–RNA interactions and to determine the taxol binding site, the binding constant, the sequence selectivity, the helix stability, and the biopolymer secondary structure in the taxol–polynucleotide complexes in vitro. The FTIR spectroscopic studies were conducted with taxol/polynucleotide (phosphate) ratios of 1/80, 1/40, 1/20, 1/10, 1/4, and 1/2 with a final DNA(P) or RNA(P) concentration of 12.5 mmol/L, and capillary electrophoresis was performed after incubation of taxol with polynucleotides at ratios of 1/200 to 1/12 with a final polynucleotide concentration of 1.25 mmol/L. Taxol was shown to bind to DNA and RNA at G–C, A–T, or A–U bases and the backbone PO 2 group. Two types of binding were observed for taxol–DNA with K 1 = 1.3 × 10 4 L mol –1 and K 2 = 3.5 × 10 3 L mol –1 , whereas taxol–RNA complexes showed one type of binding with K = 1.3 × 10 4 L mol –1 . The taxol–polynucleotide complexation is associated with a partial helix stabilization and no major alterations of B-DNA or A-RNA structure. Key words: DNA, RNA, taxol, binding site, binding constant, conformation, helix stability, electrophoresis, FTIR spectroscopy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207