MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310946180 · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c01504

Photocaged DNA-Binding Photosensitizer Enables Photocontrol of Nuclear Entry for Dual-Targeted Photodynamic Therapy

2022· article· en· W4310946180 on OpenAlexafffund
Elyse M. Digby, Seylan Ayan, Pradeep Shrestha, Elizabeth J. Gehrmann, Arthur H. Winter, Andrew A. Beharry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of ChemistryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotodynamic therapyPhotosensitizerChemistrySinglet oxygenDAPIReactive oxygen speciesBiophysicsCytosolConjugateCancer cellDNA damageDNACancer researchPhotochemistryBiochemistryApoptosisCancerOxygenBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a clinically approved cancer treatment that requires a photosensitizer (PS), light, and molecular oxygen─a combination which produces reactive oxygen species (ROS) that can induce cancer cell death. To enhance the efficacy of PDT, dual-targeted strategies have been explored where two photosensitizers are administered and localize to different subcellular organelles. To date, a single small-molecule conjugate for dual-targeted PDT with light-controlled nuclear localization has not been achieved. We designed a probe composed of a DNA-binding PS (Br-DAPI) and a photosensitizing photocage (WinterGreen). Illumination with 480 nm light removes WinterGreen from the conjugate and produces singlet oxygen mainly in the cytosol, while Br-DAPI localizes to nuclei, binds DNA, and produces ROS using one- or two-photon illumination. We observe synergistic photocytotoxicity in MCF7 breast cancer cells, and a reduction in size of three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroids, demonstrating that nuclear/cytosolic photosensitization using a single agent can enhance PDT efficacy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207