MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024069420 · doi:10.1007/s11307-013-0680-5

Detection of the Prodrug-Activating Enzyme Carboxypeptidase G2 Activity with Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer Magnetic Resonance

2013· article· en· W2024069420 on OpenAlexaff
Yann Jamin, Thomas R. Eykyn, Evon Poon, Caroline J. Springer, Simon P. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Imaging and Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsChemistryGlutamate receptorGlutamate carboxypeptidase IIBiochemistryMedicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate if the differential exchange rates with bulk water between amine and amide protons can be exploited using chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance (CEST-MR) to monitor the release of glutamate induced by carboxypeptidase G2 (CPG2), an enzyme utilized in cancer gene therapy. PROCEDURES: Z spectra of solutions of the CPG2 substrate, 3,5-difluorobenzoyl-L-glutamate (amide), and glutamate (amine) were acquired at 11.7 T, 37 °C, across different pH (5-8). The ability of CEST-MR to monitor CPG2-mediated release of glutamate was assessed in extracts of CPG2-expressing cancer cells and purified solution of CPG2. RESULTS: The addition of CPG2 to a solution containing 3,5-difluorobenzoyl-L-glutamate led to a marked and progressively increasing CEST effect (+3 ppm), concomitant with the time-dependent release of glutamate induced by CPG2. CONCLUSION: CEST-MR allows the detection of CPG2 activity in vitro and supports the translation of CEST-MRI to assess CPG2-based gene therapy in vivo.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Imaging and BiologySame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207