MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141925453 · doi:10.1177/1087057115607814

A Surface Plasmon Resonance Spectroscopy Method for Characterizing Small-Molecule Binding to Nerve Growth Factor

2015· article· en· W2141925453 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Kennedy, Kristen S.A. Sheffield, Joseph K. Eibl, Michael Murphy, Rahul Vohra, John A. Scott, Gregory M. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueSLAS DISCOVERY · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface plasmon resonanceNerve growth factorSmall moleculeChemistryBinding siteMoleculeSaturation (graph theory)BiophysicsBiochemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceReceptorBiologyOrganic chemistryNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small-molecule inhibitors have been previously investigated to identify possible therapeutics for the treatment of chronic pain. In the present study, known nerve growth factor (NGF) inhibitors identified by (125)I-NGF binding were characterized using affinity and binding evaluations by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) spectroscopy. A novel strategy for characterizing NGF inhibitors was used to determine the binding affinity (KD) and saturation ability of each compound with immobilized NGF. Seventy-four percent of compounds screened demonstrated a positive binding event to NGF. A KD less than 10 μM and a percent saturation greater than 50% were used as thresholds to identify inhibitors that would warrant further investigation. This study details for the first time a methodology that can be used to directly characterize the binding event between small-molecule inhibitors and NGF.

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: none
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)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLAS DISCOVERYSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207