COMPENDIUM: a text summarisation tool for generating summaries of multiple purposes, domains, and genres

In this paper, we present a Text Summarisation tool, compendium, capable of generating the most common types of summaries. Regarding the input, single- and multi-document summaries can be produced; as the output, the summaries can be extractive or abstractive-oriented; and finally, concerning their purpose, the summaries can be generic, query-focused, or sentiment-based. The proposed architecture for compendium is divided in various stages, making a distinction between core and additional stages. The former constitute the backbone of the tool and are common for the generation of any type of summary, whereas the latter are used for enhancing the capabilities of the tool. The main contributions of compendium with respect to the state-of-the-art summarisation systems are that (i) it specifically deals with the problem of redundancy, by means of textual entailment; (ii) it combines statistical and cognitive-based techniques for determining relevant content; and (iii) it proposes an abstractive-oriented approach for facing the challenge of abstractive summarisation. The evaluation performed in different domains and textual genres, comprising traditional texts, as well as texts extracted from the Web 2.0, shows that compendium is very competitive and appropriate to be used as a tool for generating summaries.

Muscle-Type Nicotinic Receptor Blockade by Diethylamine, the Hydrophilic Moiety of Lidocaine

Lidocaine bears in its structure both an aromatic ring and a terminal amine, which can be protonated at physiological pH, linked by an amide group. Since lidocaine causes multiple inhibitory actions on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), this work was aimed to determine the inhibitory effects of diethylamine (DEA), a small molecule resembling the hydrophilic moiety of lidocaine, on Torpedo marmorata nAChRs microtransplanted to Xenopus oocytes. Similarly to lidocaine, DEA reversibly blocked acetylcholine-elicited currents (IACh) in a dose-dependent manner (IC50 close to 70 μM), but unlike lidocaine, DEA did not affect IACh desensitization. IACh inhibition by DEA was more pronounced at negative potentials, suggesting an open-channel blockade of nAChRs, although roughly 30% inhibition persisted at positive potentials, indicating additional binding sites outside the pore. DEA block of nAChRs in the resting state (closed channel) was confirmed by the enhanced IACh inhibition when pre-applying DEA before its co-application with ACh, as compared with solely DEA and ACh co-application. Virtual docking assays provide a plausible explanation to the experimental observations in terms of the involvement of different sets of drug binding sites. So, at the nAChR transmembrane (TM) domain, DEA and lidocaine shared binding sites within the channel pore, giving support to their open-channel blockade; besides, lidocaine, but not DEA, interacted with residues at cavities among the M1, M2, M3, and M4 segments of each subunit and also at intersubunit crevices. At the extracellular (EC) domain, DEA and lidocaine binding sites were broadly distributed, which aids to explain the closed channel blockade observed. Interestingly, some DEA clusters were located at the α-γ interphase of the EC domain, in a cavity near the orthosteric binding site pocket; by contrast, lidocaine contacted with all α-subunit loops conforming the ACh binding site, both in α-γ and α-δ and interphases, likely because of its larger size. Together, these results indicate that DEA mimics some, but not all, inhibitory actions of lidocaine on nAChRs and that even this small polar molecule acts by different mechanisms on this receptor. The presented results contribute to a better understanding of the structural determinants of nAChR modulation.