Bibliographic record
Abstract
The site of action of griseofulvin, a drug which is reported to be fungistatic in nature, has been under study for some time. As yet though, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to which observed effects are primary and which are secondary. In the study reported here, initial experiments were involved with effects of griseofulvin on oxygen uptake, in correlation with cell starvation. The effects of the drug on glucose oxidation also were studied. Definite alterations were noted in both of these areas. Further investigations were carried out, utilizing cell-free extracts and techniques for measurement of dehydrogenases, but these proved unsuccessful. Amino acid metabolism also was surveyed but no evidence of any alteration was observed. Attempts to produce protoplasts from dermatophytes were successful, and utilizing these structures, investigations into the effects of griseofulvin on cytoplasmic membrane permeability and on cell wall resynthesis, were carried out. In both cases the alterations were small and appeared to be secondary in nature. In the final study, purified cell walls of organisms grown in the presence and absence of griseofulvin, were compared on the basis of amino acid, amino sugar, and sugar content. No differences were observed in these preparations. In addition, no evidence was found to show that griseofulvin wlis incorporated into cell walls. It was concluded that griseofulvin may possibly affect the enzymes involved in the synthesis of the substrates of endogenous respiration, or the mechanisms controlling these enzymes. It was also concluded that the drug's site of action is probably on or near the cytoplasmic membrane, and by inference that the biochemical site may be in the area of purine and pyrimidine metabolism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".