MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2104521207 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2015-0039

Pharmacophore modeling and molecular docking studies of acridines as potential DPP-IV inhibitors

2015· article· en· W2104521207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reema Abu Khalaf, Z. Jarekji, Tariq Al‐Qirim, Dima A. Sabbah, Ghassan Shattat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Jordan
KeywordsPharmacophoreChemistryDocking (animal)Dipeptidyl peptidasePharmacologyCombinatorial chemistryStereochemistryIsostereDipeptidyl peptidase-4Molecular modelBiochemistryGlucagon-like peptide-1EnzymeType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) prevents the inactivation of gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide–1 (GLP-1). This increases circulating levels of active GLP-1 and GIP and stimulates insulin secretion, which results in lowering of glucose levels and improvement of the glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. In this study, pharmacophore modeling and docking experiments were carried out and a series of eight novel 2-ethoxy-6,9-disubstituted acridines (13, 15, and 17a–17f) have been designed and synthesized. Then, these compounds were evaluated for their ability to inhibit DPP-IV. Most of the synthesized compounds were proven to have anti-DPP-IV activity where compound 17b displayed the best activity of 43.8% inhibition at 30 μmol/L concentration. Results of this work might be helpful for further optimization to develop more potent DPP-IV inhibitors.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Chemistry→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→