MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385246430 · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00464

Computational Design of Potent and Selective <scp>d</scp>-Peptide Agonists of the Glucagon-like Peptide-2 Receptor

2023· article· en· W4385246430 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro A. Valiente, Satra Nim, Ji‐Sun Kim, Philip M. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsChemistryGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorReceptorPeptidePhosphorylationGlucagon-like peptide-1Protein kinase BAgonistProtein kinase APharmacologyBiochemistryEndocrinologyBiologyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, we designed three d-GLP-2 agonists that activated the glucagon-like peptide-2 receptor (GLP-2R) cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) accumulation without stimulating the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R). All the d-GLP-2 agonists increased the protein kinase B phosphorylated (p-AKT) expression levels in a time- and concentration-dependent manner in vitro. The most effective d-GLP-2 analogue boosted the AKT phosphorylation 2.28 times more effectively compared to the native l-GLP-2. The enhancement in the p-AKT levels induced by the d-GLP-2 analogues could be explained by GLP-2R's more prolonged activation, given that the d-GLP-2 analogues induce a lower β-arrestin recruitment. The higher stability to protease degradation of our d-GLP-2 agonists helps us envision their potential applications in enhancing intestinal absorption and treating inflammatory bowel illness while lowering the high dosage required by the current treatments.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207