MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896083380 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1811759115

Molecular mechanism of activation of the immunoregulatory amidase NAAA

2018· article· en· W2896083380 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Gorelik, A. Gebai, Katalin Illes, Daniele Piomelli, Bhushan Nagar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Light Source
KeywordsAmidaseMechanism (biology)ChemistryBusinessBiochemistryEnzymePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-acylethanolamine acid amidase (NAAA), a cysteine hydrolase expressed at high levels in immune cells. Pharmacological inhibitors of NAAA activity exert profound analgesic and antiinflammatory effects in rodent models, pointing to this protein as a potential target for therapeutic drug discovery. To facilitate these efforts and to better understand the molecular mechanism of action of NAAA, we determined crystal structures of this enzyme in various activation states and in complex with several ligands, including both a covalent and a reversible inhibitor. Self-proteolysis exposes the otherwise buried active site of NAAA to allow catalysis. Formation of a stable substrate- or inhibitor-binding site appears to be conformationally coupled to the interaction of a pair of hydrophobic helices in the enzyme with lipid membranes, resulting in the creation of a linear hydrophobic cavity near the active site that accommodates the ligand's acyl chain.

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 score0.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→