MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390784145 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.04453

High throughput screening for LC3/GABARAP binders utilizing fluorescence polarization assay

2024· preprint· en· W4390784145 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin P. Schwalm, Johannes Dopfer, Stefan Knapp, Vladimir V. Rogov

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechDeutschen Konsortium für Translationale KrebsforschungOntario Genomics InstituteEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMerck KGaAOntario GenomicsGenome CanadaMcGill UniversityBayerPfizerDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsATG8AutophagySmall moleculeChemistryPeptideFluorescenceFluorescence anisotropyHigh-throughput screeningMoleculeCombinatorial chemistryBiophysicsNanotechnologyBiochemistryBiologyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characterization of interactions between autophagy modifiers (Atg8-family proteins) and their natural ligands (peptides and proteins) or small molecules is important for a detailed understanding of selective autophagy mechanisms and for design of potential Atg8 inhibitors that affect the autophagy processes in cells. The fluorescence polarization (FP) assay is a rapid, cost-effective and robust method which provides affinity and selectivity information of small molecules and peptide ligands targeting human Atg8 proteins. This chapter introduces the basic principles of FP assays are introduced. In addition, a case study for FP small molecule and peptide interactions with human Atg8 proteins (LC3/GABARAPs) is described. Finally, data analysis and quality control of FP studies are discussed for the proper calculation of Ki values of the measured compounds.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207