MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007413665 · doi:10.2174/1381612023395501

Cationic Peptides: Distribution and Mechanisms of Resistance

2002· review· en· W2007413665 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCationic polymerizationInnate immune systemBacteriaMicrobiologyProteaseLipopolysaccharideAntimicrobial peptidesCell biologyChemistryAntimicrobialInflammationBiologyBiophysicsBiochemistryImmunologyImmune systemEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cationic antimicrobial peptides are observed throughout nature. In mammals they are observed both at epithelial surfaces and within the granules of phagocytic cells. They are an important component of innate defences, since in addition to their ability to kill microorganisms, they are able to modulate inflammatory responses. With respect to their ability to kill bacteria, it is very difficult to isolate resistant mutants. However there are a few known mechanisms of intrinsic resistance, including PhoPQ-dependent and other alterations in lipopolysaccharide structure that influence self promoted uptake, and protease-mediated resistance. Keywords: Cationic Peptides, Cationic antimicrobial peptides, antimicrobial peptides, cationic abtimicrobial peptides, phopq, phopphoq regulon, burkholderia cepacia, proteases

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.237 · 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