MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069493168 · doi:10.1089/jir.2006.0167

Preparation and Characterization of Monopegylated Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor

2008· article· en· W2069493168 on OpenAlexaff
Darin L. Lee, Isha Sharif, Shantha Kodihalli, Donald I.H. Stewart, Vadim Tsvetnitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interferon & Cytokine Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEGylationChemistrySodium dodecyl sulfateChromatographyHigh-performance liquid chromatographySize-exclusion chromatographyPolyethylene glycolPEG ratioPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisGranulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factorGel electrophoresisRecombinant DNAPeptideBioassayBiochemistryIn vitroBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Conjugates of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) attached to polyethylene glycol (PEG) chains were prepared using amine-reactive chemistry. Molecular masses of the PEGs were 20, 30, and 40 kDa. The monopegylated forms were isolated by anion-exchange chromatography and characterized by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), size-exclusion chromatography, mass spectrometry, reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), peptide mapping, in vitro cell proliferation bioassays, and rat pharmacokinetic studies. The pegylation site of the purified monopegylated products was identified as the N-terminus of the protein. All forms of pegylated GM-CSF were able to stimulate TF-1 cell proliferation in a colorimetric bioassay at concentrations equal to or lower than that of GM-CSF. Pharmacokinetic studies in rats demonstrated 32-fold, 27-fold, and 40-fold extensions in elimination half-lives for 20, 30, and 40 kDa PEG-GM-CSF, respectively, as compared with nonmodified GM-CSF.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interferon & Cytokine ResearchSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207