A Structure-Based 3D-QSAR Study of Anthrapyrazole Analogues of the Anticancer Agents Losoxantrone and Piroxantrone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of 13 anthrapyrazole compounds that are analogues of piroxantrone and losoxantrone were synthesized, and their cell growth inhibitory effects, DNA binding, topoisomerase IIalpha mediated (EC 5.99.1.3) cleavage of DNA, and inhibition of DNA topoisomerase IIalpha decatenation catalytic activities were determined. Cell growth inhibitory activity was well-correlated with DNA binding, suggesting that these compounds may act by targeting DNA. However, cell growth inhibition was not well-correlated with the inhibition of topoisomerase IIalpha catalytic activity, suggesting that these anthrapyrazoles did not act solely by inhibiting the catalytic activity of topoisomerase II. Most of the analogues were able to induce DNA cleavage, and thus, it was concluded that they acted, at least in part, as topoisomerase II poisons. Structure-based three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity analyses (3D-QSAR) were carried out on the aligned structures of the anthrapyrazoles docked into DNA using comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity index (CoMSIA) analyses in order to determine the structural features responsible for their activity. Both CoMFA and CoMSIA yielded statistically significant models upon partial least-squares analyses. The 3D-QSAR analyses showed that hydrogen-bond donor interactions and electrostatic interactions with the protonated amino side chains of the anthrapyrazoles led to high cell growth inhibitory activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".