MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970852343 · doi:10.1002/cmdc.201900466

Single Amino Acid Replacement in G‐7039 Leads to a 70‐fold Increase in Binding toward GHS‐R1a

2019· article· en· W2970852343 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler Lalonde, Milan M. Fowkes, Jinqiang Hou, Pierre E. Thibeault, Mark Milne, Savita Dhanvantari, Rithwik Ramachandran, Leonard G. Luyt

Bibliographic record

VenueChemMedChem · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChemistryG protein-coupled receptorReceptorSecretagogueInternal medicineStereochemistryEndocrinologyMolecular biologyBiochemistryBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The growth hormone secretagogue receptor type 1a (GHS‐R1a) is a class A rhodopsin‐like G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) that is expressed in a variety of human tissues and is differentially expressed in benign and malignant prostate cancer. Previously, the peptidomimetic [1‐Nal 4 ,Lys 5 (4‐fluorobenzoyl)]G‐7039 was designed as a molecular imaging tool for positron emission tomography (PET). However, this candidate was a poor binder (IC 50 =69 n m ), required a lengthy four‐step radiosynthesis, and had a cLog P above 8. To address these challenges, we now report on changes targeted at the 4 th position of G‐7039. A 2‐fluoropropionic acid (2‐FPA) group was added on to Lys 5 to determine the potential binding affinity of the [ 18 F]‐2‐FP radiolabeled analogue, which could be prepared by simplified radiochemistry. Lead candidate [Tyr 4 ,Lys 5 (2‐fluoropropionyl)]G‐7039 exhibited an IC 50 of 0.28 n m and low picomolar activity toward GHS‐R1a. Molecular docking revealed a molecular basis for this picomolar affinity.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemMedChemSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207