MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116376866 · doi:10.1645/ge-3161

EFFECTS OF TOPOISOMERASES INHIBITORS PROTOBERBERINE ON LEISHMANIA DONOVANI GROWTH, MACROPHAGE FUNCTION, AND INFECTION

2003· article· en· W2116376866 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-François Marquis, Darshan Makhey, Edmond J. LaVoie, Martin Olivier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopoisomeraseBiologyLeishmania donovaniLeishmaniaMacrophageKinetoplastidaIn vitroNitric oxideParasite hostingMicrobiologyPharmacologyBiochemistryLeishmaniasisImmunologyProtozoal diseaseVisceral leishmaniasisMalaria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA topoisomerases play a pivotal role in the regulation of cell division. Inhibition of Leishmania spp. topoisomerases represents an alternative to control parasite growth. Cancer research led to the development of several potent topoisomerase inhibitors such as topoisomerase I, topoisomerase II, or both (monobenzimidazole, terbenzimidazole, and protoberberine alkaloid-related compounds) that are effective antitumor agents. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of these compounds against Leishmania spp. growth in vitro. Some protoberberine compounds showed pronounced antileishmanial activity and were selected for further analysis in macrophages. These compounds did not affect macrophage viability and only slightly reduced macrophage nitric oxide generation in response to interferon-gamma. Moreover, exposure of infected macrophages to these compounds significantly reduced parasite loads. Collectively, our data suggest that protoberberine-related compounds have powerful antileishmania action and that minor structural variations among them can substantially improve their activity to restrict Leishmania spp. infection in vitro.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207