MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532575009 · doi:10.1039/c6ob01484d

Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of CXCR4 ligands

2016· article· en· W2532575009 on OpenAlexaff
Christine E. Mona, Élie Besserer‐Offroy, Jérôme Cabana, Richard Leduc, Pierre Lavigne, Nikolaus Heveker, Éric Marsault, Emanuel Escher

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganic & Biomolecular Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCombinatorial chemistryComputational biologyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of the CXCR4 inverse agonist T140 with N-terminal CXCL12 oligopeptides has produced the first nanomolar synthetic CXCR4 agonists. In these agonists, the inverse agonistic portion provides affinity whereas the N-terminal CXCL12 sequence induces receptor activation. Several CXCR4 crystal structures exist with either CVX15, an inverse agonist closely related to T140 and IT1t, a small molecule; we therefore attempted to produce another CXCL12 oligopeptide combination with IT1t. For this purpose, a primary amino group was introduced by total synthesis into one of the methyl groups of IT1t, serving as an anchoring point for the oligopeptide graft. The introduction of the oligopeptides on this analog however yielded antagonists, one compound displaying high affinity. On the other hand, the amino-substituted analogue itself proved to be an inverse agonist with a binding affinity of 2.6 nM compared to 11.5 nM for IT1t. This IT1t-like analog is hitherto one of the most potent non-peptidic CXCR4 inverse agonists reported.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganic & Biomolecular ChemistrySame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207