MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555036782 · doi:10.5772/35610

Computational Virtual Screening Towards Designing Novel Anticancer Drugs

2012· book-chapter· en· W1555036782 on OpenAlexaff
Po‐Yuan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersChina Medical University
KeywordsVirtual screeningDocking (animal)Drug discoveryComputer scienceDrugComputational biologyLigand (biochemistry)Combinatorial chemistryChemistryReceptorPharmacologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generally speaking, Docking is most popular and critical issue in this research field, because it contains most important information both Ligands (Drugs) and Receptors (it can be intracellular protein, trans-membrane protein or extracellular protein). However, when the ligand's information is not sufficient, it needs other calculation strategies to design and "modify" the ligands, and theoretically improve the drug effects, and that is called De Novo Evolution Drug Design. Current methods for structure-based drug design can be divided roughly into two categories. The first category is about "finding" ligands for a given receptor, which is usually referred as database searching. In this case, a large number of potential ligand molecules are screened to find those fitting the binding pocket of the receptor. This method is usually referred as structure-based drug design. The key advantage of database searching is that it saves synthetic effort to obtain new lead compounds. Another category of structure-based drug design methods is about "building" ligands, which is usually referred as receptor-based drug design. In this case, ligand molecules are built up within the constraints of the binding pocket by assembling small pieces in a stepwise manner. These pieces can be either individual atoms or molecular fragments. The key advantage of such a method is that novel structures, not contained in any database, can be suggested. These techniques are raising much excitement to the drug design community. Above two computational methods, the first is called virtual screening by Docking (the drugs are well prepared and need to be screen out the most suitable candidates), and the other is De.Novo Evolution Drug Design (De Novo means "creates" or "building" ligands) However, when the targeting protein is unclear, or the factors are complicated, QSAR method is implemented to help user solving these problems. Because QSAR method just needs ligands structures and IC 50 datasets to unveil an unknown novel drugs. Finally, when both of Ligands and Receptors are unknown, Homology Modeling is the only method for dealing with this problem. By using Homology Modeling, the Receptors 1-D sequences similarities can be used as a tool to reconstruct the 3-D structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207