MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757458726 · doi:10.1002/dta.2306

Characterization of <i>in vitro</i> generated metabolites of selected peptides &lt;2 kDa prohibited in sports

2017· article· en· W2757458726 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andreas Thomas, André Knoop, Wilhelm Schänzer, Mario Thevis

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Testing and Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsIn vitroChemistryBiochemistryPharmacologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an increasing number of prohibited substances in doping controls, knowledge about their metabolism is crucial for efficient analysis. While for low molecular mass molecules, standard protocols for in vitro metabolism experiments are well established, the situation with peptidic drugs has been shown to be substantially more heterogeneous and complex. Two principle strategies aiming at simulating the metabolism of lower molecular mass peptides in vitro are presented within this study. The prohibited peptides ARA-290, GHRP-3, and Peforelin, with a to-date unknown metabolism, were chosen as model compounds for these experiments and metabolism after incubation with different blood specimens (EDTA-, heparin-, citrate-plasma, and serum) and exposure to recombinant amidase were investigated. The characterization of in vitro generated drug-derived peptidic analytes was accomplished by means of liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry. Identification of the generated metabolites was ensured by dedicated high resolution product ion experiments after liquid chromatographic separation. While extensive exopeptidase-driven metabolism was observed for ARA-290 (with one main metabolite PyrEQLERALN), GHRP-3 and Peforelin were found to exhibit a considerable metabolic stability with a low tendency for deamidation only. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Testing and AnalysisSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207