MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400087312 · doi:10.1016/j.tetlet.2024.155162

Exploring macrocyclization strategies to design novel octreotate-based radioconjugates

2024· article· en· W4400087312 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Chapeau, Angelos Iroidis, Savanne Beckman, Yann Seimbille

Bibliographic record

VenueTetrahedron Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySomatostatin receptor 2RegioselectivitySomatostatin receptorSomatostatinCysteineIn vivoCombinatorial chemistryPeptideStereochemistryReceptorBiochemistryInternal medicineEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peptides derived from the cyclic tetradecapeptide somastostatin exhibit a strong affinity primarily towards the G-protein coupled somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2), which is overexpressed in neuroendocrine tumors. These somatostatin analogs, such as octreotide (TOC) or octreotate (TATE), are typically cyclized through a disulfide bridge. To address the potential fragility of this linkage in vivo, four distinct stapling strategies were explored to develop novel TATE derivatives with improved stability. Each approach induced a different distance between the two sulfhydryl groups involved into the macrocyclization. Additionally, the stapling linkers were designed to present a third functional group required for the regioselective insertion of a metal chelate. Ultimately, six stapled octreotate derivatives (stTATE-01/06), possessing 3 to 6 chemical bonds between the two cysteine residues, were synthesized and radiolabeled with indium-111. Evaluation of their affinity to SSTR2, conducted through a competitive binding assay, aimed to identify the most effective stapling strategy. However, a significant loss of affinity was observed for all stapled peptides compared to the gold standard DOTA-TATE, confirming that these macrocyclization approaches were detrimental to the biological activity of the new SSTR2 ligands.

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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTetrahedron LettersSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207