MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>In Vitro</i> Assessment of Putative PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors: Suggestions of an Alternative Mode of Action

2019· article· en· W2955654457 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek J. Blevins, Ronan P. Hanley, Trevor G. Bolduc, David Powell, Michael C. Gignac, Kayleigh Walker, Mark D. Carr, Fraser Hof, Jeremy E. Wulff

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMode of actionIn vitroAction (physics)PharmacologyComputational biologyCombinatorial chemistryChemistryComputer scienceMedicineInformation retrievalBiologyBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) signaling axis is among the most important therapeutic targets in modern oncology. Aurigene Discovery Technologies Ltd. (Aurigene) has patented a series of peptidomimetic small molecules derived from the PD-1 protein sequence for use in targeting the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1. We evaluated three of Aurigene's most potent compounds in SPR binding assays. Our results showed that these compounds-each of which is known to be potently effective in a splenocyte recovery assay-do not directly inhibit the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction nor do they appear to bind to either of the constituent proteins, indicating that another mechanism is at play. As a result of these studies and upon consideration of structural features within the PD-1/PD-L1 complex, we hypothesize that the Aurigene molecules may interact with a currently unknown protein capable of regulating the PD-1 axis.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Medicinal Chemistry LettersSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207