MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107112179 · doi:10.1177/1087057110375615

Evaluation of Cannabinoid Receptor 2 and Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 1 Functional Responses Using a Cell Impedance–Based Technology

2010· article· en· W2107112179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paola Scandroglio, R. Brusa, Gianluca Lozza, Isabella Mancini, Roberta Petrò, Angelo Reggiani, Massimiliano Beltramo

Bibliographic record

VenueSLAS DISCOVERY · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetabotropic glutamate receptor 1Cannabinoid receptor type 2Metabotropic glutamate receptor 4Metabotropic glutamate receptorMetabotropic glutamate receptor 7Metabotropic glutamate receptor 6Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5Metabotropic receptorPharmacologyChemistryMetabotropic glutamate receptor 2ReceptorAgonistCannabinoid receptorBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, new technologies based on biosensors and called label free have been developed. These technologies eliminate the need for using markers and dyes. The authors applied one of these technologies, based on measurement of cell impedance variation, to study the pharmacological profiles of ligands for the cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2), a Gi-coupled receptor, and for the metabopotropic glutamate receptor 1 (mGluR1), a Gq-coupled receptor. Reference agonists and antagonists/inverse agonists for the 2 receptors were applied to recombinant cell lines and impedance monitored over time. Agonists (JWH133 and CP55940 for CB2; quisqualate, glutamate, 1S-3R-ACPD, and S-3,5-DHPG for mGluR1) triggered a variation of impedance consistent in both potency and efficacy with data obtained using classical assays measuring cAMP or Ca(2+) levels. This effect was not present in the parental nontransfected cell line, confirming specific receptor-mediated response. Application of antagonists (AM630 for CB2; YM298198, SCH1014222, J&J16259685, and CPCCOEt for mGluR1) reduced agonist-induced impedance changes. The only exception was the mGluR1 antagonist BAY367620 that, while active in the Ca(2+) assay, was inactive in the impedance assay. Overall, these results confirm the possibility of using cell impedance-based technology to study the pharmacological profile of ligands acting at G-protein-coupled receptors coupled to different downstream signaling pathways.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLAS DISCOVERYSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207