MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening method to identify inhibitors of siderophore biosynthesis in the opportunistic fungal pathogen,<i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i>

2009· article· en· W2031220125 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda J. Pinto, Margo M. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueLetters in Applied Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsAspergillus fumigatusLibrary sciencePathogenBiological sciencesClinical microbiologyBiologyMicrobiologyHuman pathogenFungal pathogenComputational biologyComputer scienceGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Aspergillus fumigatus is the most common cause of airborne mould infections in immunocompromised patients worldwide. Our aim was to develop a method to identify agents that inhibit siderophore biosynthesis because this pathway is unique to the fungus and is essential for virulence. METHODS AND RESULTS: A high-throughput two-step screening assay was developed using 96-well plates in which fungal growth and siderophore production is assessed spectrophotometrically. If a compound inhibits growth only in iron-limited medium (screen 1), its effect on siderophore production is then determined (screen 2). The proof of concept was demonstrated using a known antifungal agent, amphotericin B, and a strain of A. fumigatus deficient in siderophore production. CONCLUSIONS: The two-stage screening method clearly identified growth defects in A. fumigatus related specifically to siderophore biosynthesis. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The increasing incidence of life-threatening fungal infections has produced an urgent need for novel antifungal agents. The method described in this report will facilitate the identification of novel antifungal compounds that inhibit a pathway critical for A. fumigatus virulence and have a reduced probability of affecting host metabolism.

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)0.001
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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLetters in Applied MicrobiologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207