Quantitative Chemical Proteomics for Identifying Candidate Drug Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed a systematic strategy for drug target identification. This consists of the following sequential steps: (1) enrichment of total binding proteins using two differential affinity matrixes upon which are immobilized positive and negative chemical structures for drug activity, respectively; (2) covalent labeling of the proteins with a new cleavable isotope-coded affinity tag (ICAT) reagent, followed by proteolysis of the combined proteins; (3) isolation, identification, and relative quantification of the tagged peptides by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; (4) array-based transcription profiling to select candidate proteins; and (5) confirmation of direct interaction between the activity-associated structure and the selected proteins by using surface plasmon resonance. We present a typical application to identify the primary binding protein of a novel class of anticancer agents exemplified by E7070. Our results suggest that this approach provides a new aspect of quantitative proteomics to find specific binding proteins from protein mixture and should be applicable to a wide variety of biologically active small molecules with unidentified target proteins.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".