Identification of new checkpoint kinase-1 (Chk1) inhibitors by docking, 3D-QSAR, and pharmacophore-modeling methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition of checkpoint kinase-1 (Chk1) by small molecules is of great therapeutic interest in the field of oncology and for understanding cell-cycle regulations. This paper presents a model with elements from docking, pharmacophore mapping, the 3D-QSAR approaches CoMFA, CoMSIA and CoRIA, and virtual screening to identify novel hits against Chk1. Docking, 3D-QSAR (CoRIA, CoMFA and CoMSIA), and pharmacophore studies delineate crucial site points on the Chk1 inhibitors, which can be modified to improve activity. The docking analysis showed residues in the proximity of the ligands that are involved in ligand–receptor interactions, whereas CoRIA models were able to derive the magnitude of these interactions that impact the activity. The ligand-based 3D-QSAR methods (CoMFA and CoMSIA) highlight key areas on the molecules that are beneficial and (or) detrimental for activity. The docking studies and 3D-QSAR models are in excellent agreement in terms of binding-site interactions. The pharmacophore hypotheses validated using sensitivity, selectivity, and specificity parameters is a four-point model, characterized by a hydrogen-bond acceptor (A), hydrogen-bond donor (D), and two hydrophobes (H). This map was used to screen a database of 2.7 million druglike compounds, which were pruned to a small set of potential inhibitors by CoRIA, CoMFA, and CoMSIA models with predicted activity in the range of 8.5–10.5 log units.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".