MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737413018 · doi:10.3390/molecules22071229

Effects of K11R and G31P Mutations on the Structure and Biological Activities of CXCL8: Solution Structure of Human CXCL8(3-72)K11R/G31P

2017· article· en· W2737413018 on OpenAlexafffund
Hsi-Tsung Cheng, Huiyuan Yu, John Gordon, Fang Li, Jya‐Wei Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsCXC chemokine receptorsInterleukin 8ChemokineReceptorChemotaxisChemistryInflammationAntagonistCell biologyChemokine receptorPharmacologyImmunologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ELR-CXC chemokines are important to neutrophil inflammation in many acute and chronic diseases. Among them, CXCL8 (interleukin-8, IL-8), the expression levels of which are elevated in many inflammatory diseases, binds to both the CXCR1 and CXCR2 receptors with high affinity. Recently, an analogue of human CXCL8, CXCL8(3–72)K11R/G31P (hG31P) has been developed. It has been demonstrated that hG31P is a high affinity antagonist for both the CXCR1 and CXCR2. Herein, we have determined the solution structure and the CXCR1 N-terminal peptide binding sites of hG31P by NMR spectroscopy. We have found that the displacement within the tertiary structure of the 30 s loop and the N-terminal region and more specifically change of the loop conformation (especially H33), of hG31P may affect its binding to the CXCR1 receptor and thereby inhibit human neutrophil chemotactic responses induced by ELR-CXC chemokines. Our results provide a structural basis for future clinical investigations of this CXCR1/CXCR2 receptor antagonist and for the further development of CXCL8 based antagonists.

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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207