MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026927555 · doi:10.2174/1389557053175371

Taxol Anticancer Activity and DNA Binding

2005· article· en· W2026927555 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Malonga, J. F. Neault, S. Diamantoglou, H.A. Tajmir‐Riahi

Bibliographic record

VenueMini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNAIntercalation (chemistry)ChemistryHelix (gastropod)Binding constantStereochemistryIn vitroBase pairBiophysicsCapillary electrophoresisBinding siteBiochemistryBiologyChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interaction of taxol with DNA has major biological importance since it is shown the presence of higher concentration of taxol in the nucleus, than in the human lung tumor cell. Therefore, in this report we examine the interaction of taxol with calf-thymus DNA in aqueous solution at physiological pH, using constant DNA concentration (25 or 1.25 mM phosphate) and various taxol/DNA (phosphate) ratios 1/200 to 1/2. Capillary electrophoresis and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) difference spectroscopic methods are used to characterize the nature of drug-DNA interaction and to determine the taxol binding site, the binding constant, sequence selectivity, helix stability and biopolymer secondary structure in the taxol-DNA complexes in vitro. Structural analysis showed that taxol is an external DNA binder with no affinity towards DNA intercalation. The major target of taxol is A-T, G-C bases and the backbone PO(2) groups. Two bindings were observed for taxol-DNA complexes with K(1)= 1.4 x 10(4) M(-1) and K(2)=3.5 X 10(3) M(-1). The taxol-DNA interaction is associated with a partial helix stabilization and no major alterations of B-DNA structures.

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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMini-Reviews in Medicinal ChemistrySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207