MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751504191 · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics9030032

Revisiting the Latency of Uridine Diphosphate-Glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs)—How Does the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane Influence Their Function?

2017· review· en· W2751504191 on OpenAlexaff
Yuejian Liu, Michael W.H. Coughtrie

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoplasmic reticulumUridine diphosphateGlucuronidationMicrosomeChemistryBiochemistryGlucuronosyltransferaseUridineEnzymeMembraneAglyconeIn vivoBiophysicsBiologyStereochemistryRNAGlycoside

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) are phase 2 conjugation enzymes mainly located in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) of the liver and many other tissues, and can be recovered in artificial ER membrane preparations (microsomes). They catalyze glucuronidation reactions in various aglycone substrates, contributing significantly to the body's chemical defense mechanism. There has been controversy over the last 50 years in the UGT field with respect to the explanation for the phenomenon of latency: full UGT activity revealed by chemical or physical disruption of the microsomal membrane. Because latency can lead to inaccurate measurements of UGT activity in vitro, and subsequent underprediction of drug clearance in vivo, it is important to understand the mechanisms behind this phenomenon. Three major hypotheses have been advanced to explain UGT latency: compartmentation, conformation, and adenine nucleotide inhibition. In this review, we discuss the evidence behind each hypothesis in depth, and suggest some additional studies that may reveal more information on this intriguing phenomenon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceuticsSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207