MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320259688 · doi:10.1021/jm3002839

Virtual Screening and Computational Optimization for the Discovery of Covalent Prolyl Oligopeptidase Inhibitors with Activity in Human Cells

2012· article· en· W2320259688 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphane De Cesco, Sébastien Deslandes, Éric Therrien, David Levan, Mickaël Cueto, Ralf Schmidt, Louis‐David Cantin, Anthony Mittermaier, Lucienne Juillerat‐Jeanneret, Nicolas Moitessier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeptidase Inhibition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)McGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstraZeneca
KeywordsOligopeptidaseVirtual screeningChemistryDocking (animal)Covalent bondSmall moleculeRecombinant DNAEnzymeDrug discoveryBiochemistryComputational biologyCombinatorial chemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our docking program, Fitted, implemented in our computational platform, Forecaster, has been modified to carry out automated virtual screening of covalent inhibitors. With this modified version of the program, virtual screening and further docking-based optimization of a selected hit led to the identification of potential covalent reversible inhibitors of prolyl oligopeptidase activity. After visual inspection, a virtual hit molecule together with four analogues were selected for synthesis and made in one-five chemical steps. Biological evaluations on recombinant POP and FAPα enzymes, cell extracts, and living cells demonstrated high potency and selectivity for POP over FAPα and DPPIV. Three compounds even exhibited high nanomolar inhibitory activities in intact living human cells and acceptable metabolic stability. This small set of molecules also demonstrated that covalent binding and/or geometrical constraints to the ligand/protein complex may lead to an increase in bioactivity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207