MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966781746 · doi:10.1021/ja010772a

Modeling the Action of an Antitumor Drug:  A Density Functional Theory Study of the Mechanism of Tirapazamine

2001· article· en· W1966781746 on OpenAlexafffund
Fuqiang Ban, James W. Gauld, Russell J. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and Biological Evaluation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTirapazamineChemistryDensity functional theoryPhotochemistryComputational chemistryBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density functional theory methods are employed to investigate experimentally proposed mechanisms by which the antitumor drug tirapazamine may react with a DNA sugar-C(1)' radical to give the sugar derivative deoxyribonolactone, with concomitant DNA strand breakage. For the previously proposed minor pathway, ionization of the sugar-C(1)' radical by tirapazamine, the calculated ionization energy, and the electron affinity of the models of the sugar-C(1)' radical of DNA and tirapazamine suggest that tirapazamine must be protonated to be able to oxidize the sugar-C(1)' radical. The preferred mechanism for reaction of tirapazamine with a sugar-C(1)' radical, in agreement with experimental observations, is found to proceed by direct attack of an N-oxide oxygen of tirapazamine at the sugar-C(1)' position, followed by homolytic cleavage of the N-O bond of the drug moiety. Possible alternative mechanisms are also investigated.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicSynthesis and Biological EvaluationFrench-language works237,207