MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048816080 · doi:10.1021/jm049087f

Successful in Silico Discovery of Novel Nonsteroidal Ligands for Human Sex Hormone Binding Globulin

2005· article· en· W2048816080 on OpenAlexaff
Artem Cherkasov, Zheng Shi, Magid Fallahi, Geoffrey L. Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacophoreIn silicoChemistrySex hormone-binding globulinVirtual screeningNonsteroidalDocking (animal)Quantitative structure–activity relationshipDrug discoveryLigand (biochemistry)Binding siteMolecular modelStereochemistryComputational biologyCombinatorial chemistryBiochemistryHormonePharmacologyReceptorBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using "in silico" drug design methodologies, we have discovered several nonsteroidal compounds of natural origin that bind to human sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) with affinity constants of 0.1 x 10(6) to 1.2 x 10(6) M(-1). The computational solutions we developed involved pharmacophore-aided database search, virtual protein-ligand docking, and structure-activity modeling with "inductive" QSAR descriptors. By screening 23 836 natural substance structures, we identified 29 potential SHBG ligands, and eight of these bound the protein in vitro. These nonsteroidal ligands belong to four classes of molecular scaffolds with several available substitution positions that could allow chemical modification to enhance SHBG-binding activity. Interestingly, one of these compounds is structurally similar to a dicyclohexane derivative that binds to rat SHBG and causes azospermia when administered to male rats. Taken together, the in silico strategy we have developed will aid in the discovery of nonsteroidal ligands of SHBG with novel pharmacological properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207