MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016267475 · doi:10.1021/ml300377d

Interrogation of the Active Sites of Protein Arginine Deiminases (PAD1, -2, and -4) Using Designer Probes

2013· article· en· W2016267475 on OpenAlexafffund
Angélica M. Bello, Ewa Wasilewski, Lianhu Wei, Mario A. Moscarello, Lakshmi P. Kotra

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsArginineInterrogationChemistryComputer scienceComputational biologyBiochemistryMedicineBiologyAmino acidGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein arginine deiminases (PADs) are involved in a number of cellular pathways, and they catalyze the transformation of peptidyl arginine residue into a citrulline as part of post-translational modifications. To understand ligand preferences, a group of probe molecules were investigated against PAD1, PAD2, and PAD4. These probe molecules carried a well-known covalent modifier of the catalytic cysteine residue, 2-chloroacetamidine moiety, which was tethered to an α-amino acid via a carbon linker. The chain length for the linker varied from 0 to 4. Time-dependent assays indicated that 2-chloroacetamidine (2CA) with no linker inhibited all PAD enzymes with a similar trend in the second-order rate constants, although with poor affinity. Among the other three probe molecules, compound 3 with a three-carbon linker exhibited the best second-order rate constants for optimal ligand reactivity with the binding site. These analyses provide insights into the relative patterns of covalent inactivation of PAD isozymes and the design of novel inhibitors targeting PAD enzymes as potential therapeutic targets.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Medicinal Chemistry LettersSame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207