MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132504067 · doi:10.1002/cmdc.201000358

Probing Small‐Molecule Binding to Cytochrome P450 2D6 and 2C9: An In Silico Protocol for Generating Toxicity Alerts

2010· article· en· W2132504067 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gianluca Rossato, Beat Ernst, Martin Smieško, Morena Spreafico, Angelo Vedani

Bibliographic record

VenueChemMedChem · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCYP2C9PharmacophoreIn silicoCYP2D6Cytochrome P450Computational biologyQuantitative structure–activity relationshipDrugDrug discoveryDocking (animal)ChemistryPharmacologyDrug metabolismBinding siteBiochemistryBiologyEnzymeStereochemistryMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug metabolism, toxicity, and their interaction profiles are major issues in the drug-discovery and lead-optimization processes. The cytochromes P450 (CYPs) 2D6 and 2C9 are enzymes involved in the oxidative metabolism of a majority of marketed drugs. Therefore, the prediction of the binding affinity towards CYP2D6 and CYP2C9 would be beneficial for identifying cytochrome-mediated adverse effects triggered by drugs or chemicals (e.g., toxic reactions, drug-drug, and food-drug interactions). By identifying the binding mode by using pharmacophore prealignment, automated flexible docking, and by quantifying the binding affinity by multidimensional QSAR (mQSAR), we validated a model family of 56 compounds (46 training, 10 test) and 85 compounds (68 training, 17 test) for CYP2D6 and CYP2C9, respectively. The correlation with the experimental data (cross-validated r²=0.811 for CYP2D6 and 0.687 for CYP2C9) suggests that our approach is suited for predicting the binding affinity of compounds towards CYP2D6 and CYP2C9. The models were challenged by Y-scrambling and by testing an external dataset of binding compounds (15 compounds for CYP2D6 and 40 for CYP2C9). To assess the probability of false-positive predictions, datasets of nonbinders (64 compounds for CYP2D6 and 56 for CYP2C9) were tested by using the same protocol. The two validated mQSAR models were subsequently added to the VirtualToxLab (VTL, http://www.virtualtoxlab.org).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemMedChemSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207