MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027138344 · doi:10.1089/108076803762718105

Hydrolysis of Bimatoprost (Lumigan) to its Free Acid by Ocular Tissue <i>In Vitro</i>

2003· article· en· W2027138344 on OpenAlexaff
Sean S. Davies, Won‐Kyu Ju, Arthur H. Neufeld, Daniel Abran, Sylvain Chemtob, L. Jackson Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBimatoprostCiliary bodyScleraCorneaChemistryAgonistProdrugHydrolysisReceptorIn vitroPharmacologyOphthalmologyBiochemistryOcular hypertensionMedicineIntraocular pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined whether bimatoprost, which has been reported to act via putative prostamide receptors, could be hydrolyzed to its free acid (17-phenyl-PGF(2 alpha)), a potent FP receptor agonist, by human ocular tissue in vitro. We developed a gas chromatography/mass spectrometric method to measure 17-phenyl-PGF(2 alpha) levels at sub-picomolar levels. We then analyzed the amount of 17-phenyl-PGF(2 alpha) present after incubation of 50 microl Lumigan (0.03% bimatoprost) with eye tissue using this assay. We found that cornea, sclera, iris, and ciliary body, all rapidly hydrolyzed bimatoprost to 17-phenyl-PGF(2 alpha) with linear kinetics at a rate of 6.3, 2.0, 2.8, and 1.5 pmol mg tissue(-1) hr(-1), respectively. For cornea, sclera, and ciliary body, this linear rate of hydrolysis continued over a period of at least three hours, while iris-induced hydrolysis did not continue beyond one hour. Our findings suggest that bimatoprost can act as prodrug for FP receptor activation and questions the concept of a "prostamide receptor" agonist.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ocular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207