MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ATP alters IKK‐2 inhibitor affinity for IKK2 enzyme and reveals non‐equivalent inhibitor binding sites

2012· article· en· W3174184755 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Yeu Liu, Kirk L. Stevens, Robert J. Mourey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSignaling Pathways in Disease
Canadian institutionsGilead Sciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIC50ChemistryPotencyEnzymeEnzyme assayBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Method Inhibitor off‐rate was measured by two methods: (1) pre‐binding the enzyme with inhibitor followed by measuring the recovery of enzyme activity upon a 200‐fold dilution of the enzyme‐inhibitor complex in the presence of 1mM ATP and (2) measuring the shift in the compound potency (IC50) curves obtained by prebinding the enzyme and inhibitor in the absence of ATP followed by addition of either 1μM or 1mM ATP. Results Three literature inhibitors with potency (IC50) ranging from <1 to 35 nM were used for this study: PHA‐408 (Pfizer), GSK‐082 (GSK), and AVE‐002 (Aventis). The off‐rates (T1/2) measured by the dilution method are 124 and <15 min for PHA‐408 and GSK‐082, respectively. The off‐rate for AVE‐002 was biphasic with half of the enzyme‐inhibitor complex dissociating immediately (T1/2 < 2 min) and the other half bound tightly (T1/2 54 min). The IC50 curves at 1μM and 1mM ATP for PHA‐408 showed no shift using a short 2 min assay and is consistent with the slow off‐rate. GSK‐082 showed a > 10 fold loss of potency with 1mM ATP, as expected for a fast off‐rate inhibitor. AVE‐002 IC50 curve with 1μM ATP was monophasic but displayed a biphasic response with 1mM ATP. Conclusion ATP can change the off‐rate of IKK‐2 inhibitor bound to the enzyme. Additionally, high ATP revealed that AVE‐002 bound in the two inhibitor binding sites of the IKK‐2 homodimer non‐equivalently.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicSignaling Pathways in DiseaseFrench-language works237,207