MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501056827 · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00855

Structure–Activity Relationship Studies for Enhancer of Zeste Homologue 2 (EZH2) and Enhancer of Zeste Homologue 1 (EZH1) Inhibitors

2016· article· en· W2501056827 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaobao Yang, Fengling Li, Kyle D. Konze, Jamel Meslamani, Anqi Ma, Peter J. Brown, Ming‐Ming Zhou, C.H. Arrowsmith, H. Ümit Kanıskan, Masoud Vedadi, Jian Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersStructural Genomics ConsortiumNational Institute of General Medical SciencesWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsEZH2ChemistryEnhancerStructure–activity relationshipIn vitroBiochemistryMethylationTranscription factorGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EZH2 or EZH1 (enhancer of zeste homologue 2 or 1) is the catalytic subunit of polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) that catalyzes methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27). PRC2 hyperactivity and/or hypertrimethylation of H3K27 are associated with numerous human cancers, therefore inhibition of PRC2 complex has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach. Recent studies have shown that EZH2 and EZH1 are not functionally redundant and inhibition of both EZH2 and EZH1 is necessary to block the progression of certain cancers such as mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL)-rearranged leukemias. Despite the significant advances in discovery of EZH2 inhibitors, there has not been a systematic structure-activity relationship (SAR) study to investigate the selectivity between EZH2 and EZH1 inhibition. Here, we report our SAR studies that focus on modifications to various regions of the EZH2/1 inhibitor UNC1999 (5) to investigate the impact of the structural changes on EZH2 and EZH1 inhibition and selectivity.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations60
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207