MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383895041 · doi:10.1021/acs.biochem.3c00260

Cross-Binding of Four Adenosine/ATP Aptamers to Caffeine, Theophylline, and Other Methylxanthines

2023· article· en· W4383895041 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuzhe Ding, Yachen Xie, Albert Zehan Li, Po‐Jung Jimmy Huang, Juewen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsAptamerTheophyllineAdenosineIsothermal titration calorimetryCaffeineChemistryDNABiochemistryAdenosine triphosphateRNABiophysicsMolecular biologyBiologyPharmacologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical DNA aptamer for adenosine and ATP was selected twice using ATP as the target in 1995 and 2005, respectively. In 2022, this motif appeared four more times from selections using adenosine, ATP, theophylline, and caffeine as targets, suggesting that this aptamer can also bind methylxanthines. In this work, using thioflavin T fluorescence spectroscopy, this classical DNA aptamer showed K d values for adenosine, theophylline, and caffeine of 9.5, 101, and 131 μM, respectively, and similar K d values were obtained using isothermal titration calorimetry. Binding to the methylxanthines was also observed for the newly selected Ade1301 aptamer but not for the Ade1304 aptamer. The RNA aptamer for ATP also had no binding to the methylxanthines. Molecular dynamics simulations were performed using the classical DNA and RNA aptamers based on their NMR structures, and the simulation results were consistent with the experimental observations, explaining the selectivity profiles. This study suggests that a broader range of target analogues need to be tested for aptamers. For the detection of adenosine and ATP, the Ade1304 aptamer is a better choice due to its better selectivity.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207