MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142624712 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1508826112

Unbiased phosphoproteomic method identifies the initial effects of a methacrylic acid copolymer on macrophages

2015· article· en· W2142624712 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Dean Chamberlain, Laura A. Wells, Alexandra Lisovsky, Hongbo Guo, Ruth Isserlin, Ilana Talior‐Volodarsky, Redouan Mahou, Andrew Emili, Michael V. Sefton

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGene expressionPhosphorylationMethacrylic acidGeneChemistryCell biologyAdsorptionCopolymerCellRegulation of gene expressionBiochemistryBiologyBiophysicsPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unbiased phosphoproteomic method was used to identify biomaterial-associated changes in the phosphorylation patterns of macrophage-like cells. The phosphorylation differences between differentiated THP1 (dTHP1) cells treated for 10, 20, or 30 min with a vascular regenerative methacrylic acid (MAA) copolymer or a control methyl methacrylate (MM) copolymer were determined by MS. There were 1,470 peptides (corresponding to 729 proteins) that were differentially phosphorylated in dTHP1 cells treated with the two materials with a greater cellular response to MAA treatment. In addition to identifying pathways (such as integrin signaling and cytoskeletal arrangement) that are well known to change with cell-material interaction, previously unidentified pathways, such as apoptosis and mRNA splicing, were also discovered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207