Target-Independent Prediction of Drug Synergies Using Only Drug Lipophilicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicochemical properties of compounds have been instrumental in selecting lead compounds with increased drug-likeness. However, the relationship between physicochemical properties of constituent drugs and the tendency to exhibit drug interaction has not been systematically studied. We assembled physicochemical descriptors for a set of antifungal compounds ("drugs") previously examined for interaction. Analyzing the relationship between molecular weight, lipophilicity, H-bond donor, and H-bond acceptor values for drugs and their propensity to show pairwise antifungal drug synergy, we found that combinations of two lipophilic drugs had a greater tendency to show drug synergy. We developed a more refined decision tree model that successfully predicted drug synergy in stringent cross-validation tests based on only lipophilicity of drugs. Our predictions achieved a precision of 63% and allowed successful prediction for 58% of synergistic drug pairs, suggesting that this phenomenon can extend our understanding for a substantial fraction of synergistic drug interactions. We also generated and analyzed a large-scale synergistic human toxicity network, in which we observed that combinations of lipophilic compounds show a tendency for increased toxicity. Thus, lipophilicity, a simple and easily determined molecular descriptor, is a powerful predictor of drug synergy. It is well established that lipophilic compounds (i) are promiscuous, having many targets in the cell, and (ii) often penetrate into the cell via the cellular membrane by passive diffusion. We discuss the positive relationship between drug lipophilicity and drug synergy in the context of potential drug synergy mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".