MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884881998 · doi:10.1096/fj.201800521rr

Chemosensory bitter taste receptors (T2Rs) are activated by multiple antibiotics

2018· article· en· W2884881998 on OpenAlexafffund
Appalaraju Jaggupilli, Nisha Singh, Vivianne Cruz de Jesus, Mohamed Soussi Gounni, Premnath Dhanaraj, Prashen Chelikani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCystic Fibrosis Canada
KeywordsAntibioticsReceptorBiologyTobramycinTasteMicrobiologyPharmacologyChemistryBiochemistryGentamicin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many medications including antibiotics taste bitter. The potency of these antibiotics on the 25 bitter taste receptors (T2Rs) in humans remains poorly understood. Here we characterize by sensory and structure-function analyses how antibiotics frequently used to treat airway infections in cystic fibrosis activate multiple human T2Rs. The potency of the broad-spectrum antibiotics, tobramycin, levofloxacin, and azithromycin on the highly expressed T2Rs in airways, T2R4, T2R14, and T2R20 was pursued. The amino acids and structural features of T2R4, T2R14, and T2R20 important for antibiotic binding were characterized by mutational analysis in heterologous cell-based assays. Strikingly, extracellular loop 2 in T2Rs performs a key function in binding to antibiotics with contribution from residues in transmembrane helices. Our results suggest that different antibiotics activate multiple T2Rs with different potencies. An understanding of the nonantibiotic and physiologic effects mediated through T2Rs on the host cells is much needed.-Jaggupilli, A., Singh, N., De Jesus, V. C., Gounni, M. S., Dhanaraj, P., Chelikani, P. Chemosensory bitter taste receptors (T2Rs) are activated by multiple antibiotics.

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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations53
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207