MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Competitive behavior in the interactive toxicology of halogenated aromatic compounds

2000· article· en· W2056556673 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Petrulis, Nigel J. Bunce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAryl hydrocarbon receptorChemistryEnhancerTranscription factorAntagonismLigand (biochemistry)In vivoIn vitroReceptorStereochemistryBiochemistryCell biologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a ligand-activated transcription factor that binds and mediates responses to many halogenated aromatic compounds (HACs). Exposure to mixtures of HACs frequently results in nonadditive behavior in both in vivo and in vitro assays. One cause is antagonism, which results when two or more ligands compete for a limited supply of the AhR; one interacts agonistically to induce a strong response, and the other interacts unproductively, eliciting little or no response. This study involves the mechanism by which HACs induce CYP 1A1. Agonistic (e.g., TCDD) and unproductive (e.g., PCB 153) HACs behaved similarly through the stages of initial AhR binding and conversion of the initial AhR-ligand complex to the form that possesses increased affinity for the bound ligand. They diverged in the ability of the AhR-HAC complex to bind to a synthetic oligonucleotide containing the consensus dioxin response enhancer sequence, as studied by the gel retardation assay. Competition for the Ah receptor was used to explain antagonistic behavior between TCDD and other HACs in both the gel retardation assay and the downstream response of CYP 1A1 induction in primary rat hepatocytes.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biochemical and Molecular ToxicologySame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207