MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149998463 · doi:10.1017/s0031182002002524

Consequence of Hoechst 33342-mediated <i>Leishmania</i> DNA topoisomerase-I inhibition on parasite replication

2003· article· en· W2149998463 on OpenAlexaff
J. Marquis, Marc Drolet, Martin Olivier

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTopoisomeraseLeishmaniaLeishmania donovaniKinetoplastidaLeishmania majorDNAApoptosisDNA damageDNA replicationParasite hostingMolecular biologyLeishmania mexicanaMicrobiologyLeishmaniasisBiochemistryGeneticsImmunologyVisceral leishmaniasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports that inhibition of Leishmania Topo-I with the minor groove-binding ligands (MGBLs) Hoechst 33342 (Ho342) blocks parasite growth in culture by mechanisms involving DNA breakage. While Ho342 inhibited the replication of several species of Leishmania in a dose- and time-dependent manner, Ho258 was not effective. Cytofluorometric analysis suggested that superior effectiveness of Ho342 over Ho258 was attributed to Leishmania parasites being more permeable toward Ho342. This observation was supported by the ability of both Ho342 and Ho258 to block the relaxation of supercoiled pBR322 DNA by Leishmania Topo-I. The Ho342 specificity toward L. donovani Topo-I was reinforced by the observation that increased Topo-I gene expression and Topo-I activity in Leishmania was paralleled by augmented resistance for this compound. Furthermore, the capacity of NaCl treatment to reverse MGBL-mediated DNA break suggests that Ho342 targetted Topo-I. Moreover, we observed that Ho342-inducible arrest of Leishmania growth was accompanied by G1 arrest and induction of cell death that closely resembles apoptosis. Taken together, our results suggest that MGBL compounds show promise as Topo-I inhibitors against Leishmania infection.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207