MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094994014 · doi:10.1159/000138011

Decarboxylation of L-Dopa and 5-Hydroxytryptophan in Dispersed Rat Pancreas Acinar Cells

2008· article· en· W2094994014 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Yu, L Stern, Alan Tenenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecarboxylationAromatic L-amino acid decarboxylaseAmino acid5-HydroxytryptophanBiochemistryChemistryStereochemistryEnzymeSerotoninCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amino acid decarboxylation activity in dispersed rat pancreas acinar cells and fractions derived by differential centrifugation of homogenate of these cells was studied. The rate of decarboxylation was measured by determining the rate of production of the [3H]-amine from [3H]-amino acid or the rate of production of 14CO2 from the [14C]-carboxy-labelled amino acid. Only the hydroxylated amino acids L-dopa and 5-hydroxytryptophan are decarboxylated by intact dispersed pancreas acinar cells or cell homogenates at all pH values and amino acid concentrations tested. The decarboxylase activity is located exclusively in the cell cytosol. Each substrate competitively inhibits the decarboxylation of the other and the decarboxylation of each is inhibited by NSD-1055. The estimated Km and Vmax are, for L-dopa, 4.8 X 10(-5) M and 2.5 nmol/mg protein/min and for 5-hydroxytryptophan, 2.9 X 10(-5) M and 0.3 nmol/mg protein/min. The pH optimum for 5-hydroxytryptophan decarboxylation is from 7.0-8.5 while that for L-dopa is 7.0. It is concluded that pancreas acinar cells possess a single aromatic amino acid decarboxylase specific for the hydroxylated amino acids L-dopa and 5-hydroxytryptophan, and which is similar in all properties studied to the aromatic amino acid decarboxylase found in several other mammalian tissues.

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 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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacologySame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207