MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463461150 · doi:10.3233/jad-160517

Anti-Viral Properties of Amyloid-β Peptides

2016· review· en· W2463461150 on OpenAlexafffund
Karine Bourgade, Gilles Dupuis, Éric Frost, Tamàs Fülöp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeurodegenerationHerpes simplex virusAmyloid (mycology)Antimicrobial peptidesBiologyMechanism (biology)VirologyComputational biologyVirusPeptideDiseaseBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides generated by the amyloidogenic pathway of amyloid-β protein precursor processing contribute significantly to neurodegeneration characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The involvement of Aβ peptides in the etiology of AD remains a subject of debate. Data published in the last 6 years by three different groups have added a new twist by revealing that Aβ peptides could act as antimicrobial peptides (AMP) in in vitro assays against some common and clinically relevant microorganisms, inhibit replication of seasonal and pandemic strains of influenza A and HSV-1 virus. These observations are of significance with respect to the notion that pathogens may be important contributors to the development of AD, particularly in the case of herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, which often resides in the same cerebral sites where AD arises. Here, we review the data that support the interpretation that Aβ peptides behave as AMP, with an emphasis on studies concerning HSV-1 and a putative molecular mechanism that suggests that interactions between Aβ peptides and the HSV-1 fusogenic protein gB lead to impairment of HSV-1 infectivity by preventing the virus from fusing with the plasma membrane. A number of avenues for future research are suggested.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.366
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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations94
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207