MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513437907 · doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00185

Medicinal Chemistry Projects Requiring Imaginative Structure-Based Drug Design Methods

2016· article· en· W2513437907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounts of Chemical Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstraZeneca
KeywordsDocking (animal)PharmacophoreDrug discoveryComputational biologyChemistryProtein–ligand dockingCombinatorial chemistryVirtual screeningSmall moleculeDrugStereochemistryComputer scienceBiochemistryPharmacologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational methods for docking small molecules to proteins are prominent in drug discovery. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of documented examples-and several pertinent cases within our research program. Fifteen years ago, our first docking-guided drug design project yielded nanomolar metalloproteinase inhibitors and illustrated the potential of structure-based drug design. Subsequent applications of docking programs to the design of integrin antagonists, BACE-1 inhibitors, and aminoglycosides binding to bacterial RNA demonstrated that available docking programs needed significant improvement. At that time, docking programs primarily considered flexible ligands and rigid proteins. We demonstrated that accounting for protein flexibility, employing displaceable water molecules, and using ligand-based pharmacophores improved the docking accuracy of existing methods-enabling the design of bioactive molecules. The success prompted the development of our own program, Fitted, implementing all of these aspects. The primary motivation has always been to respond to the needs of drug design studies; the majority of the concepts behind the evolution of Fitted are rooted in medicinal chemistry projects and collaborations. Several examples follow: (1) Searching for HDAC inhibitors led us to develop methods considering drug-zinc coordination and its effect on the pKa of surrounding residues. (2) Targeting covalent prolyl oligopeptidase (POP) inhibitors prompted an update to Fitted to identify reactive groups and form bonds with a given residue (e.g., a catalytic residue) when the geometry allows it. Fitted-the first fully automated covalent docking program-was successfully applied to the discovery of four new classes of covalent POP inhibitors. As a result, efficient stereoselective syntheses of a few screening hits were prioritized rather than synthesizing large chemical libraries-yielding nanomolar inhibitors. (3) In order to study the metabolism of POP inhibitors by cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYPs)-for toxicology studies-the program Impacts was derived from Fitted and helped us to reveal a complex metabolism with unforeseen stereocenter isomerizations. These efforts, combined with those of other docking software developers, have strengthened our understanding of the complex drug-protein binding process while providing the medicinal chemistry community with useful tools that have led to drug discoveries. In this Account, we describe our contributions over the past 15 years-within their historical context-to the design of drug candidates, including BACE-1 inhibitors, POP covalent inhibitors, G-quadruplex binders, and aminoglycosides binding to nucleic acids. We also remark the necessary developments of docking programs, specifically Fitted, that enabled structure-based design to flourish and yielded multiple fruitful, rational medicinal chemistry campaigns.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.349 · 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