Strategies for target identification of antimicrobial natural products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covering: 2000 to 2015Despite a pervasive decline in natural product research at many pharmaceutical companies over the last two decades, natural products have undeniably been a prolific and unsurpassed source for new lead antibacterial compounds. Due to their inherent complexity, natural extracts face several hurdles in high-throughout discovery programs, including target identification. Target identification and validation is a crucial process for advancing hits through the discovery pipeline, but has remained a major bottleneck. In the case of natural products, extremely low yields and limited compound supply further impede the process. Here, we review the wealth of target identification strategies that have been proposed and implemented for the characterization of novel antibacterials. Traditionally, these have included genomic and biochemical-based approaches, which, in recent years, have been improved with modern-day technology and better honed for natural product discovery. Further, we discuss the more recent innovative approaches for uncovering the target of new antibacterial natural products, which have resulted from modern advances in chemical biology tools. Finally, we present unique screening platforms implemented to streamline the process of target identification. The different innovative methods to respond to the challenge of characterizing the mode of action for antibacterial natural products have cumulatively built useful frameworks that may advocate a renovated interest in natural product drug discovery programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".