MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2430751685 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-363-9_14

Quantifying Interactions Between G-Quadruplex DNA and Transition-Metal Complexes

2009· article· en· W2430751685 on OpenAlexaff
Roxanne E. Kieltyka, Pablo Englebienne, Nicolas Moitessier, Hanadi F. Sleiman

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsG-quadruplexTransition (genetics)DNANanotechnologyChemistryMaterials scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telomerase inhibition through guanine quadruplex sequestration by small-molecule drugs is of great current interest as an anticancer strategy. G-quadruplexes (GQs) can be formed at the guanine-rich sequences found at the end of the telomere. They possess a large electron-rich pi-surface which is favorable for the binding of electron-poor small molecules. Small molecules binding to GQs can sequester the telomere ends and inhibit the enzyme telomerase, which is expressed in cancer cells and absent in normal somatic cells. Transition-metal complexes present a myriad of geometries and numerous ligand coordination environments and allow for modular syntheses for development of compound libraries to target GQs. We have demonstrated the size of the pi-surface, binding selectivity and affinity of phenanthroimidazole platinum (II) complexes [PtPIX(en)](2+)2PF (6) (-) (X = naphthyl, phenyl and en = ethylenediamine) and metallosupramolecular complexes [Pt(4,4'-bpy)(en)] (4) (8+) 8PF (6) (-) (where bpy = bipyridine) to GQs can be readily tuned and assayed through a number of biophysical techniques.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207