MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910664855 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2012-0523

Rational questing for inhibitors of endothelin converting enzyme-1 from <i>Salvia miltiorrhiza</i> by combining ligand- and structure-based virtual screening

2013· article· en· W1910664855 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xing Wang, Yuhong Xiang, Zhenzhen Ren, Yanling Zhang, Yanjiang Qiao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacophoreVirtual screeningChemistrySalvia miltiorrhizaDocking (animal)DOCKComputational biologyActive siteStereochemistryCombinatorial chemistryEnzymeBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a virtual screening approach based on pharmacophore and molecular docking was proposed to identify endothelin converting enzyme-1 (ECE-1) (EC 3.4.24.71) inhibitors from Salvia miltiorrhiza. First, the pharmacophore models were generated to recognize the common features of the ECE-1 inhibitors. The models were validated by a test database composed by a set of compounds known as ECE-1 inhibitors and nonactive compounds and proven to be successful in discriminating active and inactive inhibitors. Then, the best pharmacophore model was used to screen the compounds from S. miltiorrhiza. Furthermore, the Surflex-Dock procedure was used for molecular docking. All compounds from S. miltiorrhiza were docked into the active site of the target protein. An empirical scoring function was used to evaluate the affinity of the compounds and the target protein. Comparing the virtual screening results based on pharmacophore and molecular docking, respectively, 11 communal compounds with higher QFIT and docking score were hit, and the activity of some compounds was validated in the literature. The binding modes between these compounds and the ECE-1 binding site were predicted and used to identify the key interactions that contribute to the inhibitory activity of ECE-1 activity. The results show that the two methods have good consistency and can be validated and supplemented with each other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207