MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026314653 · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00228

Utilizing Organoid and Air-Liquid Interface Models as a Screening Method in the Development of New Host Defense Peptides

2020· review· en· W3026314653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsSimon Fraser UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsComputational biologyAntimicrobial peptidesDrug developmentBiologyInnate immune systemOrganoidDrug discoveryInduced pluripotent stem cellDrugImmune systemPeptideCell biologyBioinformaticsBiochemistryPharmacologyEmbryonic stem cellImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host defence peptides (HDPs), also known as antimicrobial peptides, are naturally occurring polypeptides (~12-50 residues) composed of cationic and hydrophobic amino acids that adopt an amphipathic conformation upon folding usually after contact with membranes. HDPs have a variety of biological activities including immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm functions. Although HDPs have the potential to address the global threat of antibiotic resistance and to treat immune and inflammatory disorders, they have yet to achieve this promise. Indeed, there are several challenges associated with bringing peptide-based drug candidates from the lab bench to clinical practice, including identifying appropriate indications, stability, toxicity and cost. These challenges can be addressed in part by the development of innate defence regulator (IDR) peptides and peptidomimetics, which are synthetic derivatives of HDPs with similar or better efficacy, increased stability, and reduced toxicity and cost of the original HDP. However, one of the largest gaps between basic research and clinical application is the validity and translatability of conventional model systems, such as cell lines and animal models, for screening HDPs and their derivatives as potential drug therapies. Indeed, such translation has often relied on animal models, which have only limited validity. Here we discuss the recent development of human organoids for disease modeling and drug screening, assisted by the use of omics analyses. Organoids, developed from primary cells, cell lines, or human pluripotent stem cells, are three-dimensional, self-organizing structures that closely resemble their corresponding in vivo organs with regards to immune responses, tissue organization and physiological properties; thus, organoids represent a reliable method for studying efficacy, formulation, toxicity and to some extent drug stability and pharmacodynamics. The use of patient-derived organoids enables the study of patient-specific efficacy, toxicogenomics and drug response predictions. We outline how organoids and omics data analysis can be leveraged to aid in the clinical translation of IDR peptides.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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