Comparison of the interaction of uridine, cytidine, and other pyrimidine nucleoside analogues with recombinant human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 2 (hENT2) produced in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human equilibrative nucleoside transporters I and 2 (hENT1, hENT2) share 50% amino acid identity and exhibit broad selectivities, accepting purine and pyrimidine nucleosides as permeants. The permeant selectivity of hENT2 is less well understood because of the low abundance of the native transporter in cells amenable to functional analysis. Recent studies of hENT2 produced in recombinant form in functional expression systems have shown that it differs from hENT1 in that it transports nucleobases. To further understand the structural requirements for permeant interaction with hENT2, we compared the relative abilities of uridine, cytidine, and their analogues to inhibit transport of [3H]uridine by recombinant hENT1 and hENT2 produced in yeast. hENT1 and hENT2 tolerated halogen modification at the 5 position of the base and the 2' and 5' positions of the ribose moieties of uridine whereas removal of the hydroxyl group at the 3' position of the ribose moiety of uridine eliminated interaction with both transporters. hENT2 displayed a lower ability, compared with hENT1, to interact with cytidine and cytidine analogues, suggesting a low tolerance for the presence of the amino group at the 4 position of the base.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".