MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Potential of Cell-Penetrating Peptide-Conjugated Antisense Oligonucleotides for the Treatment of SMA

2024· preprint· en· W4396705170 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Leckie, Toshifumi Yokota

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSMA*Conjugated systemPeptideOligonucleotideCellChemistryBiochemistryComputer scienceGenePolymerAlgorithmOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe neuromuscular disorder that is caused by mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, hindering the production of functional survival motor neuron (SMN) proteins. Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), a versatile DNA-like drug, are adept at binding to target RNA to prevent translation or promote alternative splicing. Nusinersen is an FDA-approved ASO for the treatment of SMA. It can effectively promote alternative splicing in SMN2, an analog of SMN1, to produce a greater amount of full length SMN protein, to compensate for the loss of functional protein translated from SMN1. Despite its efficacy in ameliorating SMA symptoms, the cellular uptake of these ASOs is suboptimal and their inability to penetrate the CNS necessitates invasive lumbar punctures. Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs), that can be conjugated to ASOs, represent a promising approach to improve the efficiency of these treatments for SMA and have the potential to transverse the blood-brain barrier to circumvent the need for intrusive intrathecal injections and their associated adverse effects. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of ASO therapy, their application for the treatment of SMA, and the encouraging potential of CPPs as delivery systems to improve ASO uptake and overall efficiency.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207