MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052097013 · doi:10.1089/adt.2014.587

Assays for the Identification and Prioritization of Drug Candidates for Spinal Muscular Atrophy

2014· review· en· W2052097013 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan J. Cherry, Dione Kobayashi, Maureen M. Lynes, Nikolai N. Naryshkin, Francesco Danilo Tiziano, Phillip G. Zaworski, Lee L. Rubin, Jill Jarecki

Bibliographic record

VenueAssay and Drug Development Technologies · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsPortage College
FundersPTC TherapeuticsSpinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation
KeywordsSMN1Spinal muscular atrophySMA*Drug discoveryCandidate geneExonBiologyGeneBioinformaticsWeaknessMedicineGeneticsComputational biologyAnatomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder resulting in degeneration of α-motor neurons of the anterior horn and proximal muscle weakness. It is the leading cause of genetic mortality in children younger than 2 years. It affects ∼1 in 11,000 live births. In 95% of cases, SMA is caused by homozygous deletion of the SMN1 gene. In addition, all patients possess at least one copy of an almost identical gene called SMN2. A single point mutation in exon 7 of the SMN2 gene results in the production of low levels of full-length survival of motor neuron (SMN) protein at amounts insufficient to compensate for the loss of the SMN1 gene. Although no drug treatments are available for SMA, a number of drug discovery and development programs are ongoing, with several currently in clinical trials. This review describes the assays used to identify candidate drugs for SMA that modulate SMN2 gene expression by various means. Specifically, it discusses the use of high-throughput screening to identify candidate molecules from primary screens, as well as the technical aspects of a number of widely used secondary assays to assess SMN messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) and protein expression, localization, and function. Finally, it describes the process of iterative drug optimization utilized during preclinical SMA drug development to identify clinical candidates for testing in human clinical trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssay and Drug Development TechnologiesSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207