Synthesis of disulfated peptides corresponding to the <i>N</i>‐terminus of chemokines receptors CXCR6 (CXCR6<sub>1–20</sub>) and DARC (DARC<sub>8–42</sub>) using a sulfate‐protecting group strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tyrosine sulfation is a post translational modification that occurs on integral membrane and secreted proteins, and is required for mediating crucial biological processes. Until recently the synthesis of sTyr peptides, especially those containing multiple sTyr residues, were among the most challenging peptides to prepare. We recently described an efficient strategy for Fmoc-based solid phase synthesis of sTyr peptides in which the sulfate group in the sTyr residue(s) is protected with a DCV group (FmocTyr(SO(3)DCV)OH, 1). After cleavage of the peptide from the support the DCV group is removed by hydrogenolysis. Here we demonstrate that sTyr peptides containing Met or Trp residues can be prepared using our sulfate-protecting group strategy by preparing peptides corresponding to residues 1-20 of chemokine receptor CXCR6 and 8-42 of chemokine receptor DARC. Removing the DCV groups at the end of the syntheses was readily achieved, without any reduction of the indole ring in Trp, by performing the hydrogenolysis in the presence of triethylamine. These conditions were found to be particularly efficient for removing the DCV group and superiour to our original conditions using H(2), ammonium formate, Pd/C. The presence of Met was found not to interfere with the removal of the DCV group. The use of pseudoproline dipeptides and N-backbone protection with the 2,4-dimethoxybenzyl group were found to be very effective tactics for preventing aggregation and aspartimide formation during the synthesis of these peptides. We also report an alternative and more cost effective synthesis of amino acid 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".