MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956004552 · doi:10.1002/cbic.201900317

Biosynthetic Short Neuropeptides: A Rational Theory Based on Experimental Results for the Missing Pain‐Relief Opioid Endomorphin Precursor Gene

2019· article· en· W2956004552 on OpenAlexaff
Ayami Matsushima, Jun Sese, Kanako O. Koyanagi

Bibliographic record

VenueChemBioChem · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeptideGeneComplementary DNAOpioid peptidePeptide sequenceAmino acidBiologyNeuropeptideNucleotideBiochemistryComputational biologyGeneticsReceptorOpioid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endomorphins are neuropeptides that bind strongly to μ-opioid receptors and are considered to play important roles in pain modulation and other biological functions. Two endomorphins have been identified, to date, endomorphine-1 and -2; both are tetrapeptides and differ by only a single amino acid in the third position. Both peptides were isolated from bovine brains; however, their precursor genes have not been identified. In this study, a nucleotide sequence corresponding to the endomorphin-1 peptide in an expressed sequence tag database has been found and a preproendomorphin-like precursor peptide from human brain complementary DNA (cDNA) has been cloned. The cDNA consists of nucleotide sequences of two already annotated predicted genes, and the putative peptide differs by one amino acid from the isolated endomorphin peptides. It is proposed herein that there is the possibility of unknown short proteins or peptide precursors being missed by automated gene prediction programs based on similarities of known protein sequences. A novel concept of how to produce endomorphins from a similar peptide is described. The oxidatively modified base might provide a clue for understanding discrepancies between nucleotide sequences on the genome and those on cDNAs.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemBioChemSame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207