MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986481920 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34381

Comparative analysis of photocaged RGDS peptides for cell patterning

2012· article· en· W1986481920 on OpenAlexafffund
Ajoy Basak, Swapan Majumdar, Harold C. Jarrell, Nam Huan Khieu, Xudong Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Biological SciencesOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTetrapeptideRGD motifCell adhesionIntegrinPeptideCellBiophysicsOligopeptideMaterials scienceDocking (animal)AdhesionAmideSide chainReceptorChemistryBiochemistryPolymerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photocaged RGDS is a cell nonadhesive tetrapeptide that can be activated with light to become cell-adhesive. Such molecules can find useful applications in controlling cell adhesion for biological study, drug development, and in forming dynamic, adhesion-controlled biomaterials. Herein, we prepared RGDS peptide photocaged either on the Arg-Gly backbone amide nitrogen atom (R[-]GDS) or Asp side chain carboxyl (RG[D]S). A critical comparison of the peptides' chemical and physiological properties relevant for biological applications was carried out. It was observed that RG[D]S was synthesized more readily via automated solid-phase synthesis, underwent uncaging with a rate constant 3-fold higher than R[-]GDS, and was more stable in aqueous solution. Automated docking studies were performed to examine the interactions of various caged RGDS peptides with cell surface integrin receptor to identify suitable locations for the photosensitive 2-nitrobenzyl (NB) group for biological applications. A competitive binding ELISA method compared the ability of various peptides to bind to α(V)β(3) cell integrin receptors and the data were found to be consistent with the modeling predictions. Finally, the application of our caged RGDS peptides in controlling cell adhesion to form cell patterns on a hydrogel material was presented.

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)0.003
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207