Can ‘Bacterial-Metabolite-Likeness' Model Improve Odds of ‘in Silico' Antibiotic Discovery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Inductive' QSAR descriptors have been used to develop the series of QSAR models enabling 'in silico' distinguishing between antimicrobial compounds, conventional drugs, and druglike substances. The constructed neural network-based models operating by 30 'inductive' parameters have been validated on an extensive set of 2686 chemical structures and resulted in up to 97% accurate separation of the three types of molecular activities. The demonstrated ability of 'inductive' parameters to adequately capture molecular features determining 'antibiotic-like' and 'druglike' potentials have been further utilized to construct a model of 'Bacterial-Metabolite-Likeness' (BML). The same 'inductive' descriptors have been used to train a neural network that could very accurately recognize substances involved into bacterial metabolism (that have been experimentally identified). When the developed model has been applied to the mixed set of antimicrobials, drugs, and druglike chemicals (not used for training the BML model), it exhibited a 2-5-fold recognition preference toward antimicrobial compounds compared to general drugs and an 18- to 45-fold preference when compared to a druglike substance (depending on the model stringency). These results illustrate immanent similarity between conventional antimicrobials and native bacterial metabolites and suggest that the developed BML model can be an effective classification tool for 'in silico' antibiotic studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".