MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010247113 · doi:10.1021/cb400095v

Targeted Delivery of Doxorubicin to Mitochondria

2013· letter· en· W2010247113 on OpenAlexafffund
Graham Ross Chamberlain, David V. Tulumello, Shana O. Kelley

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Chemical Biology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMitochondrionDoxorubicinNucleic acidTopoisomeraseEffluxBiologyOrganelleCancer cellBiochemistryMitochondrial DNACell biologyDNAChemistryCancerGeneticsChemotherapyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several families of highly effective anticancer drugs are selectively toxic to cancer cells because they disrupt nucleic acid synthesis in the nucleus. Much less is known, however, about whether interfering with nucleic acid synthesis in the mitochondria would have significant cellular effects. In this study, we explore this with a mitochondrially targeted form of the anticancer drug doxorubicin, which inhibits DNA topoisomerase II, an enzyme that is both in mitochondria and nuclei of human cells. When doxorubicin is attached to a peptide that targets mitochondria, it exhibits significant toxicity. However, when challenged with a cell line that overexpresses a common efflux pump, it does not exhibit the reduced activity of the nuclear-localized parent drug and resists being removed from the cell. These results indicate that targeting drugs to the mitochondria provides a means to limit drug efflux and provide evidence that a mitochondrially targeted DNA topoisomerase poison is active within the organelle.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations196
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Chemical BiologySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207