MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594006964 · doi:10.1021/jacs.6b12830

In Situ Reconstitution of the Adenosine A<sub>2A</sub> Receptor in Spontaneously Formed Synthetic Liposomes

2017· article· en· W2594006964 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto J. Brea, Christian M. Cole, Brent Lyda, Libin Ye, R. Scott Prosser, Roger K. Sunahara, Neal K. Devaraj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of ChemistryNational Institute of General Medical SciencesHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsChemistryTransmembrane proteinReceptorLiposomeAdenosine receptorG protein-coupled receptorBiophysicsLigand (biochemistry)In situVesicleAdenosineAdenosine A2A receptorProximity ligation assayCell surface receptorMembraneBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell transmembrane receptors play a key role in the detection of environmental stimuli and control of intracellular communication. G protein-coupled receptors constitute the largest transmembrane protein family involved in cell signaling. However, current methods for their functional reconstitution in biomimetic membranes remain both challenging and limited in scope. Herein, we describe the spontaneous reconstitution of adenosine A 2A receptor (A 2A R) during the de novo formation of synthetic liposomes via native chemical ligation. The approach takes advantage of a nonenzymatic and chemoselective method to rapidly generate A 2A R embedded phospholiposomes from receptor solubilized in n -dodecyl-β- d -maltoside analogs. In situ lipid synthesis for protein reconstitution technology proceeds in the absence of dialysis and/or detergent absorbents, and A 2A R assimilation into synthetic liposomes can be visualized by microscopy and probed by radio-ligand binding.

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 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 score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207