MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602324550 · doi:10.1002/9781118590263.ch1

Biochemistry of Human Bitter Taste Receptors

2017· other· en· W2602324550 on OpenAlexafffund
Jasbir Upadhyaya, Nisha Singh, Raj Bhullar, Prashen Chelikani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Medical Service Foundation
KeywordsUmamiBitter tasteTasteTaste receptorNutraceuticalG protein-coupled receptorReceptorPerceptionNutrigenomicsBiochemistryChemistryBiologyNeuroscienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans, and probably other mammals, can taste many compounds but distinguish between five basic tastes which are sweet, bitter, sour, salt and umami. In humans, bitter taste is perceived by 25 members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily, referred to as T2Rs. This chapter describes the canonical T2R signal transduction pathway. The sensitivity of humans to the perception of some bitter compounds varies greatly. This variable bitter taste perception is the best-known example of genetic variation in oral sensation. With the deorphanization of T2Rs, studies of the mechanisms of their interaction with bitter agonists have started revealing how these receptors are able to sense such a vast array of bitter compounds. Knowledge of their ligand bound structure would further help in the identification or design of taste modulators like bitter blockers. T2R blockers could have widespread utility in antioxidant and/or nutrient-fortified food and beverages, and in pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industry.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207