Identification of a Suitable Peptidic Molecular Platform for the Development of NPY(Y<sub>1</sub>)R‐Specific Imaging Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NPY(Y 1 )R (neuropeptide Y receptor subtype 1) is an important target structure for tumor‐specific imaging and therapy as this receptor subtype is overexpressed in very high density and incidence especially in human breast cancer. Targeting this receptor with radiolabeled truncated analogues of the endogenous ligand NPY (neuropeptide Y) has, however, not yet resulted in satisfactory imaging results when using positron emission tomography (PET). This can be attributed to the limited stability of these PET imaging agents caused by their fast proteolytic degradation. Although highly promising NPY analogues were developed, their stability has only been investigated in very few cases. In this systematical work, we comparatively determined the stability of the five most promising truncated analogues of NPY that were developed over the last years, showing the highest receptor affinities and subtype selectivities. The stability of the peptides was assessed in human serum as well as in a human liver microsomal stability assay; these gave complementary results, thus demonstrating the necessity to perform both assays and not just conventional serum stability testing. Of the tested peptides, only [Lys(lauroyl) 27 ,Pro 30 ,Lys(DOTA) 31 ,Bip 32 ,Leu 34 ]NPY 27‐36 showed high stability against peptidase degradation; thus this is the best‐suited truncated NPY analogue for the development of NPY(Y 1 )R‐specific imaging agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".