MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136650137 · doi:10.1002/elps.201000187

Determination of 4‐hydroxyproline‐2‐epimerase activity by capillary electrophoresis: A stereoselective platform for inhibitor screening of amino acid isomerases

2010· article· en· W2136650137 on OpenAlexaff
Jennilee M. A. Gavina, Catharine E. White, Turlough M. Finan, Philip Britz‐McKibbin

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmino Acid Enzymes and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsomeraseChemistryHydroxyprolineStereoselectivityAmino acidProlineDiastereomerEnantiomerEnzymeIsomerizationCapillary electrophoresisBiochemistryStereochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isomerases involved in the metabolism of D/L-amino acids represent promising therapeutic targets for treatment of disease. Herein, we report a tunable platform for the assessment of enzymatic kinetics involving amino acid isomerization by CE that offers improved selectivity and sensitivity over traditional methods. Enzyme activity and competition assays were evaluated for various hydroxyproline diastereoisomers, proline enantiomers and their structural analogs using 4-hydroxyproline-2-epimerase as a model system. In this work, pyrrole 2-carboxylic acid was found to be a selective inhibitor of 4-hydroxyproline-2-epimerase with a half-maximal inhibition concentration of (2.3 + or - 0.1) mM. Reliable methods for unambiguous characterization of amino acid isomerases are required for the screening of novel inhibitors with epimerase and/or racemase activity.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicAmino Acid Enzymes and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207