MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330135833 · doi:10.1021/jm300557t

Azapeptide Analogues of the Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide 6 as Cluster of Differentiation 36 Receptor Ligands with Reduced Affinity for the Growth Hormone Secretagogue Receptor 1a

2012· article· en· W2330135833 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline Proulx, Émilie Picard, Damien Boeglin, Petra Pohankova, Sylvain Chemtob, Huy Ong, William D. Lubell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChemistryReceptorPeptideAffinitiesStereochemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The synthetic hexapeptide growth hormone releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) exhibits dual affinity for the growth hormone secretagogue receptor 1a (GHS-R1a) and the cluster of differentiation 36 (CD36) receptor. Azapeptide GHRP-6 analogues have been synthesized, exhibiting micromolar affinity to the CD36 receptor with reduced affinity toward the GHS-R1a. A combinatorial split-and-mix approach furnished aza-GHRP-6 leads, which were further examined by alanine scanning. Incorporation of an aza-amino acid residue respectively at the D-Trp(2), Ala(3), or Trp(4) position gave aza-GHRP-6 analogues with reduced affinity toward the GHS-R1a by at least a factor of 100 and in certain cases retained affinity for the CD36 receptor. In the latter cases, the D-Trp(2) residue proved important for CD36 receptor affinity; however, His(1) could be replaced by Ala(1) without considerable loss of binding. In a microvascular sprouting assay using a choroid explant, [azaTyr(4)]-GHRP-6 (15), [Ala(1), azaPhe(2)]-GHRP-6 (16), and [azaLeu(3), Ala(6)]-GHRP-6 (33) all exhibited antiangiogenic 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207