MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Small‐molecule Inhibitors of Dynein Motor Protein

2021· article· en· W3168869252 on OpenAlexafffund
Sayi’Mone Tati, Laleh Alisaraie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDyneinDynactinMechanism (biology)Motor proteinBiologyCell biologyChemistryMicrotubuleComputational biologyBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynein is a motor protein that carries cargoes in eukaryotic cells from the periphery to the nucleus. Studies have shown that dynein is involved in some medical conditions such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Huntington's, Parkinson, and Alzheimer's disease). Due to the gigantic size of dynein (1.5 MDa) and its velocity (1 µm/s), studying the protein has presented challenges. However, some small‐molecule inhibitors are thought to be suitable for studying the mechanism of dynein. Chemical compounds with inhibitory effects proposed by other research groups, have yet unknown features, such as their binding sites as well as their binding profiles with respect to the domains of dynein. The aim of this study is to explore how the inhibitors bind to dynein, so that it could provide insights into the mechanism of how the motor domain of dynein accomplishes its functions. That will provide clues on how to design novel inhibitors or analogues of the inhibitors with the purpose of finding potential drugs for the treatment of diseases involving dynein activity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics→French-language works237,207→