MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design of peptide mimetics of HIV‐1 gp120 for prevention and therapy of HIV disease

2003· article· en· W2113444783 on OpenAlexaff
Nevena Veljković, Donald R. Branch, Radmila Metlaš, Jelena Prljic, Kristian Vlahoviček, S. Pongor, Veljko Veljković

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeptideGlycoproteinVasoactive intestinal peptideInfectivityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyAntibodyViral envelopeNeutralizationBiologyImmunologyVirusMedicineComputational biologyBiochemistryNeuropeptideReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been reported that the C-terminus of the second conserved region (C2) of the envelope glycoprotein gp120, encompassing peptide RSANFTDNAKTIIVQLNESVEIN (NTM), is important for infectivity and neutralization of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). It was also demonstrated that human natural anti-vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) antibodies reactive with this gp120 region play an important role in control of HIV disease progression. The bioinformatic analysis based on the time-frequency signal processing revealed non-obvious similarities between NTM and VIP. When tested against a battery of sera from 46 AIDS patients, these peptides, in spite of a significant difference in their primary structures, showed a similar reactivity profiles (r = 0.83). Presented results point out that similarity in the periodical pattern of some physicochemical properties in primary structures of peptides plays a significant role in determination of their immunological crossreactivity. Based on these findings, we propose this bioinformatic criterion be used for design of VIP/NTM peptide mimetics for prevention and treatment of HIV disease.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peptide ResearchSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207