MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025378764 · doi:10.1002/ddr.10301

Proteinase‐activated receptors: Tethered ligands and receptor‐activating peptides

2003· article· en· W2025378764 on OpenAlexafffund
Morley D. Hollenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchServierKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsReceptorProteolysisG protein-coupled receptorProtease-activated receptorBiochemistryLigand (biochemistry)Cell biologyChemistryEnzyme-linked receptorPeptide sequenceSignal transduction5-HT5A receptorExtracellularBiologyFunctional selectivityEnzymeImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Proteinase‐activated receptors (PARs), newly‐discovered members of the G‐protein‐coupled receptor superfamily, comprising four cloned family members (PARs 1 to 4), are activated by the proteolytic unmasking of a “tethered ligand” sequence situated in the N‐terminal extracellular receptor domain. Furthermore, synthetic peptides with sequences based on the revealed tethered ligands can, in the absence of proteolysis, trigger receptor signaling. This report reviews the data supporting the tethered ligand mechanism of receptor activation, outlines the utility of the receptor‐activating peptides (so‐called PAR‐APs) for exploring the potential physiological roles of the PARs, and discusses the potential differences between the activation of the receptors via their tethered ligands as opposed to activation by the soluble peptides having the same amino acid sequences. Drug Dev. Res. 59:336–343, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Development ResearchSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207