MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890429637 · doi:10.3390/molecules23092387

d-Amino Acid Pseudopeptides as Potential Amyloid-Beta Aggregation Inhibitors

2018· article· en· W2890429637 on OpenAlexafffund
Banafsheh Mehrazma, Stanley Opare, Anahit Petoyan, Arvi Rauk

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMolecular dynamicsPeptideUmbrella samplingNeurotoxicityAmyloid betaChemistryAmino acidAmyloid (mycology)BiophysicsBiochemistryBiologyComputational chemistryToxicityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A causative factor for neurotoxicity associated with Alzheimer’s disease is the aggregation of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide into soluble oligomers. Two all d-amino acid pseudo-peptides, SGB1 and SGD1, were designed to stop the aggregation. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have been carried out to study the interaction of the pseudo-peptides with both Aβ13–23 (the core recognition site of Aβ) and full-length Aβ1–42. Umbrella sampling MD calculations have been used to estimate the free energy of binding, ∆G, of these peptides to Aβ13–23. The highest ∆Gbinding is found for SGB1. Each of the pseudo-peptides was also docked to Aβ1–42 and subjected up to seven microseconds of all atom molecular dynamics simulations. The resulting structures lend insight into how the dynamics of Aβ1–42 are altered by complexation with the pseudo-peptides and confirmed that SGB1 may be a better candidate for developing into a drug to prevent Alzheimer’s disease.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207